1. As to promissory notes in the amount of KRW 380,00,000 issued on November 25, 2002 by C with the defendant as the payee.

1. Indication of claim;

A. 1) The occurrence of bonds C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”)

The Promissory Notes dated 25, 2002 (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”) dated 25, 2002 consisting of the payee, the Defendant, the face value of KRW 380,000,000, and the due date of December 25, 2002 (hereinafter “the Promissory Notes”).

(2) The Defendant issued the Promissory Notes to secure the payment of the shares of the non-party company and the representative director of the non-party company by June 2002. D. The instant Promissory Notes was issued in order to secure the payment of the shares of the non-party company in KRW 380,000,000, and the Plaintiff and E, who were the directors of the non-party company, guaranteed the obligation of the above amount of the Promissory Notes.

B. On September 2004, the non-party company closed its business and closed its business following the Non-party company’s bankruptcy. 2) The Plaintiff told that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the full repayment of the Defendant’s obligation at the beginning of 2004.

C. On July 6, 2007, the Plaintiff was granted immunity as Seoul Central District Court No. 2007Da5556 on July 6, 2007, and the Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim in the list of creditors, but it was considered that D’s horse was fully repaid and the Defendant’s claim was fully repaid, and thus, it was not intentionally omitted from the list of creditors.

Therefore, the Plaintiff was exempted from the obligation to guarantee a promissory note against the Defendant.

The Defendant’s claim on the bill of this case expired on June 22, 2008 when the three-year prescription period under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act had expired since June 22, 2005 when the Defendant completed the execution of corporeal movables.

(E) The Plaintiff, as a guarantor of a bill, is not obligated to repay benefits since there is no benefit from the underlying relationship.

On December 31, 2015, the defendant applied for the seizure and collection order against the plaintiff to the Suwon District Court for the seizure and collection order against the debtor. Accordingly, the plaintiff's deposit claim was seized.

F. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s guarantee liability against the instant bill against the Defendant is the Plaintiff.