1. Defendant A Co., Ltd, B, C, and D shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 123,707,175 on the Plaintiff, and as a result, from November 29, 2013 to November 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) concluded a performance guarantee insurance contract (in order to guarantee the return of advance payment under the supply contract with the Defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Titman”) and the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) from July 24, 2008 to October 24, 2008 (hereinafter “instant guarantee insurance contract”).

B. Defendant B, C, and D guaranteed the Defendant Company’s indemnity liability against the Plaintiff under the instant guarantee insurance contract.

C. At the time of entering into the instant guarantee insurance contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company agreed to pay the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the Nonparty Company upon occurrence of an insured incident for which the Defendant Company failed to perform its contractual obligations under the above contract, and to pay the insurance money to the Nonparty Company in addition to the delay interest rate set by the Plaintiff within the maximum of the overdue interest rate among the general loan interest rate in a commercial bank.

After that, the Defendant Company did not perform its contractual obligations under the contract of Tae-Madon, and Tae-Madon filed a claim for insurance money against the Plaintiff on December 2008 in accordance with the instant guarantee insurance contract, and the Defendant Company filed a lawsuit against Tae-Madon for confirmation of the existence of an obligation against Tae-Madon while raising an objection, the Plaintiff suspended the payment of the insurance money.

E. Afterwards, Tae-luminous Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of insurance proceeds (Seoul Central Court 2013da27327). In the lawsuit, Defendant A Co., Ltd, C, B, and D participated in the lawsuit, and Tae-luminous Co., Ltd. was rendered a favorable judgment on November 15, 2013.

On the other hand, the supplementary intervenor appealed (Seoul Central Court 2013Na63058), but on July 31, 2014, the appeal was dismissed.

F. The above judgment of the court of first instance is rendered.