1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff 377,311,277 Won and 5% per annum from June 28, 1993 to December 13, 1999.

1. The following facts are based on the following facts: (a) between the Plaintiff, Defendant D Co., Ltd. and E Co., Ltd., each of them led to confession pursuant to Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act; and (b) between the Plaintiff, Defendant B Co., Ltd., and C, each of them can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 4 and 5 and

A. The Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) on the guarantee obligation for the limit of March 5, 1991 for transaction until March 31, 1991 (hereinafter “the guarantee obligation for the limit of KRW 1,415,700,00, and the validity period until March 31, 1991. The amount agreed on May 6, 1991 to KRW 1,491,930,00, and the validity period until March 31, 1992 (hereinafter “Article 2 agreement”). In this case, Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”), and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”), Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”), and Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) based on all joint and several guarantee obligation for each of the above Defendants B and B against Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”).

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants with the Seoul District Court 9943 as Gohap 5943 and received a judgment that “Defendant B, C, and D shall jointly and severally pay 436,05,610 won (p. 52,65,405 won based on approximately 383,390,205 won based on approximately 1 383,390,205 won, and Defendant E shall jointly and severally with Defendant B to deliver a copy of the complaint from June 28, 1998 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint, and 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The judgment became final and conclusive on February 15, 200 (hereinafter “final and conclusive judgment”).

After that, the Plaintiff’s remaining repayment from Defendant B is imminent, and the extinction prescription period of the claim based on the first final judgment is imminent, and thus, the Seoul Central District Court against the Defendants is to extend the prescription period.