1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 19, 2001, the Plaintiff’s husband C borrowed money from D, a representative director at the time of the Defendant’s representative director, and the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 150 million from the foreign exchange bank under the name of E, a representative director (hereinafter “E”), and lent the money to the Defendant (hereinafter “foreign exchange bank loans”) and the Defendant.

(2) On October 31, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired common shares (amounting to KRW 10,000) issued by the Defendant (amounting to KRW 10,00,000) on October 31, 201, and around March 2002, the shares held by the Defendant were reduced to KRW 9,000 (the total number of shares issued; hereinafter “instant shares”).

B. (i) The Defendant’s repayment of debt, etc. (i) the Defendant was not repaid the instant loan, and C, around June 2002, requested D as security for the instant loan, and requested D to change the debtor’s name of the debt amounting to KRW 275 million, including the bill discount loan and interest, in respect of the F Stock Company with the representative director (hereinafter “F”).

D. On June 28, 2002, the Defendant borrowed KRW 275 million from Gyeongbuk Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Gyeongbuk Mutual Savings Bank”) with D’s joint and several sureties’s loans and repaid F’s discount loans.

Fidelity Mutual Savings Bank filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and D on May 9, 2006 against the Defendant for a loan claim (Seoul District Court Branch Branch of 2006Gadan5541). On May 9, 2006, the above court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant and D shall jointly and severally pay 275 million won to the Gyeongbuk Mutual Savings Bank and 11% per annum from December 30, 2004 to January 29, 2005, and 21% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on May 30, 2006.

(c) takeover of G’s Defendant Company.