1. The plaintiffs are based on a renewal guarantee agreement concluded on May 7, 2010 between the plaintiffs and Saturdays2 Savings Bank.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective entries and arguments in Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 5 (including paper numbers), and the whole purport of arguments.

Plaintiff

On November 14, 2007, A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff Co., Ltd.") was loaned KRW 1 billion from the Temato2 Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (former trade name: Pakistan Mutual Savings Bank, Komato2 Mutual Savings Bank, etc., Co., Ltd., Ltd., and hereinafter referred to as the "Intean Savings Bank").

The due date was set on December 14, 2007, but it was later extended on March 31, 2010.

B. Upon the due date of the above loan obligation, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) on May 7, 2010 (hereinafter “C”) loaned KRW 1 billion (hereinafter “instant loan”) from the Non-Party Savings Bank on May 7, 201, with the due date set by the Non-Party Savings Bank (hereinafter “the instant loan”). The instant loan is immediately the Plaintiff Company’s above.

The loan was used in full for the repayment of the obligation described in the subsection.

On the same day, D, the representative director of C, the plaintiffs, E, and F (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the guarantor of this case") entered into a renewal guarantee agreement (hereinafter referred to as "instant renewal guarantee agreement") with the non-party savings bank by making the principal debtor C as C.

C. However, at the time of the instant collateral guarantee agreement, C took out loans from the Nonparty Savings Bank in addition to the instant loans, and took out loans of KRW 3 billion on December 24, 2009, and KRW 1 billion on February 11, 2010, and assumed the relevant loans.

(hereinafter referred to as the “previous Loan”) including the above KRW 3 billion and KRW 1 billion;

The non-party savings bank was declared bankrupt on April 30, 2013 (Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap55), and the defendant was the bankruptcy trustee.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant’s defense prior to the merits filed the instant lawsuit in order to cancel the preservative measure executed on the Plaintiffs’ property based on the instant collateral guarantee agreement, and there is a different way to dispute the preservative measure itself.