1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid 14,000,000 won to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from May 24, 2019 to November 29, 2019.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. Determination 1 as to the cause of the claim 1) The Plaintiff is aware of the recognition on November 25, 2016 that the Defendants D and E (hereinafter “Nonindicteds”)

In borrowing KRW 100,000,000 from each of the above 50,000 won, upon the request of the Defendants, the Defendants guaranteed the said obligation against the Nonparty. The Nonparty filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff (Seoul Southern District Court 2017Gadan26519) claiming a loan of KRW 100,000,000 against the Plaintiff, and the Defendants paid KRW 10,000,000 to D during the said lawsuit, and KRW 5,00,000,000 to E. In the said loan lawsuit, conciliation was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty on March 15, 2018 (hereinafter “Adjustment Results”).

(1) As to August 14, 2018, Defendant (the Plaintiff in this case) pays Plaintiff D KRW 40,000,000 and KRW 45,000 to Plaintiff E, respectively. When the aforementioned payment is delayed, the payment shall be made by adding damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day thereafter. The remainder of the Plaintiffs (foreign parties) shall be waived. 3. The litigation costs and expenses for the conciliation shall be borne by each party. The result of the conciliation is an executive title. The Nonparty filed an application for compulsory auction on the Plaintiff’s real estate owned by the Nonparty with Seoul Southern District Court F, and received a decision to commence compulsory auction from the above court on August 29, 2018. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, according to the fact that each of subparagraphs 1 through 7, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the judgment as to the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff, who is the entrusted guarantor, can claim for the compensation of the Defendants under Article 412(1)4)2(2) of the Civil Act without negligence.

As to this, the Defendants demanded the Plaintiff to borrow money from D and E, and requested the Defendants to borrow part of the money again, and the instant monetary transaction was conducted. The Defendants did not request the Plaintiff to provide a guarantee. Therefore, the Defendants did not have requested the Plaintiff to provide a guarantee.