1. The Defendant shall not exceed KRW 360,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 318,515,024 to the Plaintiff and KRW 299,31,449 to the Plaintiff.

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the whole pleadings, the facts as to the cause of the claim (However, the creditor shall be the plaintiff, the debtor shall be the defendant, the stock company shall be withdrawn from the lawsuit), and there is no counter-proof.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that since C, as the primary debtor, was decided to commence the rehabilitation procedure, the Defendant’s guarantee obligation should be limited to the scope of the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation claim against C according to the subsidiary nature. However, the rehabilitation plan does not affect the right of rehabilitation creditors or rehabilitation secured creditors against the debtor’s guarantor of the debtor for whom the rehabilitation procedure has commenced and other persons who bear obligations together with the debtor for whom the rehabilitation procedure has commenced (Article 250(2)1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and the above claim is rejected as it

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.