1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to the Defendant A’s KRW 29,482,540 and KRW 20 million among them, from November 24, 2012 to December 23, 2012

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract for performance (sales) guarantee as follows with respect to the obligation to pay for the goods to be borne by Defendant A and Defendant A to the insured.

(1) On July 6, 2012, the insured C and the amount of insurance coverage 20 million won

(2) On July 11, 2012, the insured corporation, a company, and 10 million won;

F. (2) Under the above performance guarantee agreement, Defendant A’s certified digital signature is attached to each of the joint and several surety agreements with the effect that Defendant A is liable to the Plaintiff pursuant to the above performance guarantee agreement, ① the guarantee limit of 1,6250,000 won for insurance contracts, ② the guarantee limit of 3,250,000 won for insurance contracts.

(3) Under an insurance contract, the Plaintiff paid the insured KRW 20 million on November 23, 2012, and KRW 9,482,540 on April 1, 2012 as insurance proceeds, respectively.

(4) ① The agreed interest rate under an insurance contract is 6% per annum until the 30th day from the day following the date of the payment of insurance proceeds, 9% per annum from the 31st to the 90th day, and 15% per annum thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleading

B. Where there exists a certified digital signature signature, it is insufficient to recognize that the digital signature concerned is the signature, signature, or seal or signature of the Signatory, and the content thereof is presumed to have not been changed after the digital signature concerned was affixed (Article 3 of the Digital Signature Act), and the evidence submitted by the Defendant B (which is the purport that both the Defendant B’s home, workplace, and mobile phone number stated in the joint guarantee document are mistakenly recorded) was used by the Defendant A’s authorized digital signature without permission.