1. The Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable to the extent of KRW 450,000,00 for Defendant B and KRW 49,553,320 for the Plaintiff and KRW 40.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 24, 2006, Defendant A obtained a general loan of KRW 350 million from Han Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Han Bank”) as of November 24, 2007, with a loan period of KRW 350 million up to November 24, 2007. Defendant B provided a joint and several guarantee to Han Bank for Defendant A’s obligations up to the limit of KRW 450 million.

B. Defendant A lost the benefit of time due to his failure to repay the above principal and interest of the loan, and his claim against the Defendants was transferred to Korea at Hana Bank to a limited liability company specializing in Ef&A No. 24th Asset-backed Securitization (hereinafter “Korea”), and the fact that the said claim was acquired was notified to the Defendants.

C. Our L&A received each dividend of KRW 389,18,079 on February 28, 2013 in the auction case of Goyang-gu District Court Goyang Branch C real estate auction in relation to the Defendants’ claims, and KRW 45,591,040 on August 14, 2012, and KRW 40,130,048 on February 28, 2013 in the above court D and E (Dual) real estate auction case, but failed to repay the principal and interest in full. As of December 31, 2013, our L&A remains in the state of unpaid repayment.

On February 18, 2014, Korea F&A transferred its claim against the Defendants to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendants thereof.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable. However, Defendant B, a joint and several surety, is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 49,553,320 of the principal and interest of loans and KRW 40,130,048 of the loan balance within the limit of KRW 45,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

(Plaintiffs sought full performance of the entire obligation against Defendant B, but there is no reason for the part exceeding the above recognized limit of the collateral guarantee). 3. It is so doing.