1. The Defendants jointly share the amount of KRW 350 million to the Plaintiff from August 30, 2008 to December 18, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 10, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) on August 10, 2007, deposited KRW 350 million with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”); and (b) on November 10, 2007, leased (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

B. The loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) drawn up by the Plaintiff and Defendant SBS comprehensive development at the time of the loan contract of this case is written with the name of Defendant C and D written in the guarantor column and signed by each name.

C. Around June 2008, Defendant B’s major shareholder E drafted a letter of payment that he would repay the loan amounting to KRW 350 million by August 29, 2008 under the instant loan agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1-3 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The witness E testified to the effect that “The instant loan certificate was prepared on the page of the Plaintiff, witness, Defendant C, and D, and that the signature of Defendant C and D stated in the guarantor column of the instant loan certificate was made by each of the Defendants C and D themselves directly.”

In full view of the aforementioned testimony and the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff lent KRW 350 million to Defendant B, and Defendant C and D guaranteed the above KRW 350 million to Defendant B at the time of the instant loan agreement.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 350,000,000 and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from August 30, 2008 to December 18, 2015, which is the last delivery date of payment order, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment.

The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant C and D were jointly and severally guaranteed and sought payment of the above loan to the Plaintiff. However, Defendant C and D exceeded the simple guarantee regarding the above loan.