1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall pay KRW 39,295,103 and its amount from October 24, 2013 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 23, 2007, Saturdays Savings Bank concluded a credit transaction agreement with Defendant A and loaned KRW 500,000,000 to Defendant A.

B. On May 23, 2007, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E entered into a comprehensive collateral guarantee contract with the Komato Savings Bank Co., Ltd. with each of the above collateral limits of KRW 750,000,000 regarding the above credit transactions.

C. As of May 16, 2013, interest on the said loan is KRW 39,199,817, and interest on the attempted repayment is KRW 95,286.

On August 31, 2012, Komato Savings Bank Co., Ltd. was declared bankrupt and the plaintiff was appointed as trustee in bankruptcy.

[Ground for Recognition: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2 (including each number), and Evidence No. 5 through 11]

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 39,295,103 won (i.e., attempted interest amounting to KRW 39,199,817) and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 24, 2013 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the last delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case containing a declaration of intent to demand performance.

(2) In addition, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the Plaintiff within the limit of KRW 750,000,00,00 each of the total collateral guarantee ceiling to the Plaintiff, jointly and severally with Defendant A, a principal debtor.

B. Defendant B and E’s assertion is asserted that there was an agreement to exempt Defendant B from the obligation of this case, but there is no evidence to prove this, and the above assertion is rejected.

(2) Defendant E asserts that the instant claim is contrary to the good faith, since it did not have any consultation on the overdue interest of the principal debtor or on the extension of the maturity of the principal obligation. However, Defendant E asserted that the instant claim contravenes the good faith principle.