1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay KRW 151,561,591 to the Plaintiff, but Defendant F is the property inherited from the net G.

1. As to Defendant A, C, E, and F

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

B. (1) The grounds for recognition are as follows: Defendant A corporation, E, and F: The judgment based on the presumption of confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act, Defendant F is subject to a qualified acceptance trial as to the net G’s inheritance obligation on August 19, 2016, and thus, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s claim amount only within the scope of the property inherited from the network G. The Plaintiff accepted the foregoing Defendant’s assertion on October 27, 2016, and changed the purport of the claim and the grounds for the claim. The Defendant did not dispute the modified purport of claim and the grounds for the claim, and thus, the Defendant’s confession is deemed to have been led to a confession by service by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

2. As to Defendant D

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and No. 6 of the judgment on the cause of the claim and the whole arguments, the plaintiff entered into an insurance contract for each authorization and permission on August 24, 1994 and January 12, 1995 with defendant A corporation. At the time, defendant D guaranteed the obligation to be borne by the plaintiff under each guarantee insurance contract. After the occurrence of the above insurance accident, the plaintiff paid 174,287,000 won total insurance money to the insured. The Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Da237010 decided November 29, 2006 and filed a lawsuit for indemnity against the debtor, including the above defendants, with "54,267,950 won, and 17,214,000 won as of June 26, 2006 to 30% of the annual interest rate of 206 to 36.4% of the total annual interest rate of 20% from the following day to 206.4% of June 29, 2006.206%.