1. On November 7, 2012 between the Plaintiff and Defendant KAS Information and Communications Co., Ltd., an agency contract:

1. The Plaintiff’s agent contract (Evidence A), management agency contract (Evidence 2), long-term product lending contract (Evidence A 3) on November 9, 2012 between the Plaintiff and Defendant KAS Information and Communications Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”), and the Plaintiff’s name following the Plaintiff’s agreement attached to the long-term product lending contract (Evidence A No. 4) are based on the Plaintiff’s seal; however, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff’s seal affixed thereto is the Plaintiff’s seal. Thus, the Defendant Co., Ltd. is presumed to have established the authenticity of each of the above contracts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu6815, Apr. 25, 1989), and there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the above contracts was signed with the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that each of the above contracts was signed with the Plaintiff.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as a whole among the claims filed against the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., and the written evidence No. 6-1 and No. 2, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.”) as of November 14, 2012 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.”), a performance guarantee insurance contract (securities No. B), the terms of which include the Plaintiff, the insured Co., Ltd., the insurance amount of which is KRW 20 million, the insurance amount of which is KRW 20,00,00, and the guarantee amount between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance”).