1.For the plaintiff: (a)

Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall pay for KRW 525,176,445 and KRW 242,063,243 among them.

1. The indication of the grounds for the attachment to the indication of the claim and the indication of the original judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2009Kahap78684) are as shown in the indication of the claim;

2. Applicable provisions;

(a) As to Defendant A corporation: Judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

(b) Against Defendant B: Judgment on deemed confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. Summary of partial dismissal.

A. Since the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap78684) was amended by Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay against the Defendants was acknowledged within the scope of applying the rate of 19% per annum, not by 20% per annum from October 1, 2015.

[1] From October 1, 2015, the statutory interest rate of 15% per annum pursuant to the main text of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 30, 2015) is applicable, but since the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is higher than the above statutory interest rate, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants applied 19% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate from October 1, 2015).

According to each statement of the complaint and the original decision, as stated below, Defendant B guaranteed each of the loans to Defendant A Co., Ltd.’s respective loans to Defendant A Co., Ltd. to the extent of the amount indicated in the following “Limit of Guarantee of Service”.

Therefore, Defendant B bears the guaranteed obligation to the Plaintiff only within the limit of the following collateral guarantee. Therefore, among the Plaintiff’s respective claims against Defendant B, the part exceeding the limit of each of the Defendant B’s respective collateral guarantee amount is without merit.

No. 50,000,000,000 638,000,000 on September 15, 2001 general financing loans of 220,003,283,230,815,464,40,000 on April 30, 202, which is the commercial bill discount of 220,000,000 commercial bills, the balance of the loan principal for the lending date of the lending date; and