1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) for KRW 300,000,000 and its amount from February 15, 2017.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of credit business, etc., and the Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is a corporation with the purpose of wholesale business of livestock products.

Defendant B is the representative director of Defendant A.

B. On May 29, 2016, the Plaintiff and Defendant A entered into a loan agreement with the effect that Defendant A would borrow business funds from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) by setting the lending limit of KRW 700,000,000, and the transaction period from May 29, 2016 to May 29, 2017.

At the time, Defendant A entered into a transfer security agreement with the purport of providing the imported freezing land as a security for transfer to the Plaintiff in order to secure the loan.

C. On May 29, 2016, Defendant B agreed to provide the Plaintiff with a joint and several surety for the loan obligations to be borne by Defendant A under the instant loan agreement (hereinafter “instant joint and several surety agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Defendant A received a total of KRW 300,000,000 from the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant loan agreement, and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant A’s loan obligation.

Based on the following, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 300,000,000 and damages for delay.

1) The freezing land, which Defendant A provided as a security for transfer, was already provided as a double security to other persons. Nevertheless, Defendant A submitted false security documents on credit transactions to the Plaintiff, thereby losing the benefit of time. The Plaintiff expressed to the Defendants that the instant loan agreement was terminated on the ground that Defendant A’s benefit was lost. 2) Even if not, the maturity period for loans under the instant loan agreement has already arrived.