1. Defendant A and Defendant B jointly and severally filed against the Plaintiff KRW 491,034,518 and KRW 489,831,109 among them.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A and Defendant B

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Grounds for recognition: Judgment based on constructive confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The fact of recognition was that Defendant B entered into a joint and several guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff on December 10, 2012 and May 27, 2015 with respect to each guarantee agreement of this case for Defendant A on May 27, 2015, and the Plaintiff failed to repay the amount to the Industrial Bank of Korea on April 2, 2019.

1.(a)

The loan 491,691,559 won stated in paragraph (1) was subrogated, and accordingly, Defendant B paid to the Plaintiff the amount of indemnity, delay damages, and legal procedure expenses to be paid to the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, Defendant B was the representative director of Defendant A, Defendant A’s failure to pay interest on the loan to the Bank from December 25, 2018, and Defendant B entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) on real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant real estate”) which is the only property only with Defendant C (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with Defendant C under excess of debt on September 21, 2018, and there was no dispute as to the registration of ownership transfer between the parties as stated in Section 2(b) of the Seoul Southern District Court’s registration of the Seoul Southern District Court on October 31, 2018.

B. According to the above legal principles and the facts of recognition as seen earlier, at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against Defendant B was not actually created, but each of the instant guarantee agreements, which was the basis of the claim, was already concluded, and Defendant A, the primary debtor of each of the above guarantee agreements, was in arrears from December 25, 2018, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement was established based on the near future legal relationship.