1. Defendant A and B jointly and severally filed against the Plaintiff KRW 41,475,280 and KRW 41,177,170 among them, respectively.

1. Basic facts

(a) The facts set out in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each set set out in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

B. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), Defendant C and Defendant B-A

b. Disposition 2-B of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”).

The fact that the registration of ownership transfer as stated in paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of this case”) has been completed is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C.

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

(a) Indication of claims: as shown in attached Forms 1 and 2;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. (i) The determination on the cause of the claim (i) the existence of the preserved claim may, in principle, be required to have occurred prior to the commission of an act that could be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that is the basis of the establishment of the claim, and there is high probability as to the fact that the claim is established in the near future due to its legal relationship. In the near future, where the probability is realized and the claim has been established, the claim may also become the preserved claim of the obligee’s right

(2) The Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against Defendant B arose after the conclusion of the instant contract, but the credit guarantee agreement, which forms the basis for the claim for indemnity, was established at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract. In light of the fact that the instant contract was concluded, the instant contract was concluded, and the fact that the credit guarantee accident occurred only in the name of the place where the instant contract was concluded.