1. The Defendants jointly and severally, Defendant A, B, and C shall not exceed the limit of KRW 2,600,000,000, respectively, to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff 1,120.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 29, 2007, Defendant Korea Construction Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) obtained a loan of KRW 2 billion from the non-party National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives (hereinafter “NFF”), and Defendant A, B, and C jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations of Defendant Company with the guarantee limit amount of KRW 2.6 billion, and agreed to comply with the terms and conditions set by NFFC within the maximum of 19.8% per annum.

B. As of February 9, 2014, the Defendants did not repay the obligation of loans of KRW 1,120,257,545 in the aggregate of the principal amount of KRW 300,54,90 as of February 9, 2014, and interest for arrears of KRW 819,702,645 in interest for delay, and the rate of delay damages applied as of the said date until the date is 19.8% per annum.

C. On September 29, 2009, NFF transferred the above loan claims against the Defendants to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendants of the transfer of the above credit. At that time, NFF reached the Defendants. On October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff, while the lawsuit in this case was pending, transferred all of the above loan claims against the Defendants to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, and notified the Defendant of the fact of the transfer of credit to the Defendant Company on December 4, 2014, and then the said notification was issued to the said Defendant at that time.

【Defendant Company, Defendant A, and Defendant B: The purport of the entire entries and arguments in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including all of the numbers) as to Defendant C: deemed confession (the main text of Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 150(1))

2. Determination

A. The judgment on the plaintiff's claim did not take effect since the plaintiff filed an application for withdrawal after the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's participation in the lawsuit, but the plaintiff's and the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's claim continues to remain effective as a ordinary co-litigation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da16729 delivered on July 9, 2004, etc.). Therefore, with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim, the health care unit Plaintiff’s successor to the Plaintiff is against the Defendants.