1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant B, 547,295,324 won and 85,382,179 won among them:

B. Defendant D is the defendant.

Indication of claim for judgment against Defendant B: as shown in the attached Form “the cause of claim”.

(However, the obligee and the obligor are deemed to be the Plaintiff and the Defendant). The facts constituting a separate claim as to the cause of the claim as to the claim as to the Defendant D’s confession judgment (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by the statement of evidence A(1) through (4). Thus, the Defendant D’s order 1-B jointly and severally with the Defendant Company B.

have an obligation to pay the money stated in the subsection.

Defendant D’s assertion argues that Defendant D could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because it was a joint guarantor at around 2000, paid KRW 20,000,000 as a joint guarantor, and the agency’s workout process is in progress.

However, insofar as the existence of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant in the judgment prior to the instant lawsuit becomes final and conclusive, the Defendant cannot contest in the instant lawsuit brought for the extension of prescription for the judgment prior to the date of closing argument in the judgment prior to the final and conclusive judgment.

(A) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Defendant’s repayment of the Defendant appears to have already been reflected in the amount of claims). In addition, even if the Defendant is in the process of personal workshop, etc., the content of the Defendant’s repayment of the Defendant’s repayment of the Defendant’s payment of the Defendant’s obligation itself

(I) The above argument by Defendant D is without merit. The above argument by Defendant D is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified.