1. The defendant A pays 41,039,861 won to the plaintiff and its 40,688,386 won, respectively, and 12% per annum from March 9, 2015 to June 25, 2015.

1. Claim against the defendant A;

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

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

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. The establishment of a preserved claim and a fraudulent act should have occurred prior to the commission of an act that can be deemed as a fraudulent act, in principle, at the time of such fraudulent act. However, there exists a legal relationship that has already been based on which the claim was established at the time of such fraudulent act, and it is highly probable that the claim would have been established in the near future based on such legal relationship. In fact, where a claim has been established due to its reality in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da4352, Apr. 12, 2002). If the obligor’s property is insufficient to repay its entire debt to a certain creditor, barring any special circumstance, if the obligor offered it as a payment in kind or as a collateral, it would be a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, and the same applies to the case where the obligor’s property offered as above or as a collateral is not an exclusive property of the obligor, but is below the amount of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20000Da14088.

When the plaintiff performed the guaranteed obligation, the defendant A shall pay the amount of the guaranteed obligation.