1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 225,607,122; and (b) from August 4, 2016 to November 29, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) borrowed KRW 300 million from the National Bank on October 12, 2007

(hereinafter “instant loan obligations”). (b)

On October 12, 2007, Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation, and the Plaintiff set up, as security for the above loan obligation, a collateral against the national bank with respect to D, E, F, and H apartment Nos. 104, 601, Gangseo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Plaintiff, the maximum debt amount of KRW 390 million, and a collateral security against the debtor company.

C. On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 225,607,122 in total to the National Bank on behalf of the Defendant Company, including KRW 7,500,00,00, and KRW 218,107,122 on April 21, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the Defendants is claiming compensation against the Defendants on the ground that he subrogated 332,038,710 won to the National Bank as a surety to secure the obligation of the instant loan, but the actual owner of the instant apartment is the Plaintiff’s wife, I, and the actual obligor of the instant loan obligation is Jin. The Plaintiff and the Defendant Company are not qualified as parties, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. In a lawsuit for performance of judgment, a person who asserts his/her right to demand performance has standing to sue, and thereafter has the standing to be the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797 delivered on June 14, 1994). As long as the Plaintiff asserted that there exists a claim for reimbursement against the Defendants, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have standing to sue, and the Defendants shall be deemed to have standing to sue. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant Company, the principal obligor of the instant loan obligation, shall be the Plaintiff, the surety who subrogated for the instant loan obligation.