1. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 191,354,309, and KRW 45,704,828 among them, with full payment from September 1, 2015.

1. Claim against Defendant A corporation

A. Around June 12, 2012, Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) indicated the claim (hereinafter “A”) was loaned KRW 550 million from the Plaintiff as at the transaction rate until June 12, 2015 during the transaction period.

Defendant A, while having repaid only a part of the principal and interest to the extent that the said period of transactions exceeds the foregoing period, delayed the payment of the principal amount of KRW 45,704,828 as of August 31, 2015 and the total of KRW 145,649,481 as of August 31, 2015.

From September 1, 2015 to the date of the closing of argument in this case, the interest rate under the above loan contract is 18% per annum.

B. Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act of the judgment to recommend confession

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. When Defendant A’s loan contract is entered into under Defendant A’s Paragraph (1), Defendant B, as the representative director of Defendant A, jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant A’s loan obligation to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, Defendant B should pay the above loans jointly and severally with Defendant A.

B. We examine whether Defendant B is jointly and severally and severally liable for the above loans owed by Defendant A.

The evidence No. 2 (No. 2) submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence consistent with the facts of the joint and several guarantee of Defendant B cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity (no evidence exists to acknowledge that the following stamp image of the name of Defendant B is made by the seal of Defendant B; according to the result of the appraiser C’s written appraisal, there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not reasonable without further review as to the remainder of the issue.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is justified, and the claim against the defendant B is not justified, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.