1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay KRW 172,770,965 to the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 19, 2006, Defendant A entered into a credit transaction agreement with the Plaintiff ( Hyundai Swiss Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. prior to the change of trade name), setting a loan of KRW 1 billion, interest rate of KRW 12% on December 19, 2007, overdue interest rate of KRW 24% on the expiration date of the extension period, and Defendant B, C, and D jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant A’s obligations with the extension limit of KRW 1.3 billion.

B. Defendant A lost the benefit of December 19, 2007 by delaying the payment of the principal and interest of the loan.

On the basis of the right to collateral security established to secure the above loan obligation, the Plaintiff filed an application for an auction of real estate rent with the Jung-gu District Court E and the Daejeon District Court F, and appropriated the principal, interest, and provisional payment of the loan of this case as dividends, and the amount of interest 171,187,338 won as the outstanding payment, interest 1,583,627 won as of March 5, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 6 evidence, Eul 1 to 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment by public notice as to a claim against Defendant A, B, or C (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged as to the claim against Defendant D, Defendant D is jointly and severally liable to pay the money stated in the claim with Defendant A, B, and C.

Defendant D asserted that the credit transaction agreement of this case was null and void in violation of laws and regulations, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

In addition, Defendant D argues to the effect that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because the Plaintiff did not notify Defendant A, who is the principal obligor, to the effect that the Plaintiff lost the benefit of time. However, even if the Plaintiff did not make such notification to Defendant D, there is no evidence to support that Defendant D could have prevented the occurrence of damages for delay, etc. through early payment upon receipt of Defendant D’s notification. Thus, Defendant D’s allegation is without merit.

4...