1. Defendant A Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 89,507,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from October 1, 2013 to October 29, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a stock company that runs the business of manufacturing and selling fireproof clothes and smoking heating, and the Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a stock company that operates painting construction business.

B. The Plaintiff had been continuously engaged in the supply of goods by supplying goods to the Defendant Company since before 2011 and receiving the payment from time to time. As of September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase of goods against the Defendant Company was KRW 89,507,000, and the maturity date arrived on September 30, 2013.

C. On the other hand, on November 20, 201, Defendant B, who served in the Defendant Company as the pro-friendly representative director of the Defendant Company, prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a letter of undertaking that “the Defendant Company shall perform its joint and several liability for all obligations arising out of commercial transactions with the Plaintiff” (hereinafter “instant letter of undertaking”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap1 to 7 evidence, the whole purport of pleading

2. According to the facts of recognition as to the claim against the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 89,507,000 for the goods and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from October 1, 2013 to October 29, 2013, the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, and 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. According to the above facts, Defendant B is jointly and severally liable for payment of KRW 89,507,00 for goods and delay damages to the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. (1) Defendant B’s decision on Defendant B’s defense (1) concluded that the instant undertaking was signed and sealed by the Plaintiff Company’s staff member, who was aware of its content, and thus, the agreement under the content of the said undertaking is null and void.