1. On November 18, 2011 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the final claim inspection judgment of this Court No. 2011 is approved.

2.

Basic Facts

On March 9, 2011, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 700 million to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) and B, a subsidiary company, and transferred KRW 700 million to D’s account in the name of E or F on the same day.

B and D issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note with the face value of 1.1 billion won in order to secure the above obligation.

On March 15, 2011, the Plaintiff decided to lend KRW 1.4 billion to B and D, and on the same day, transferred KRW 1.4 billion to D’s account in the name of Sinsan Fisheries Co., Ltd.

B and D issued promissory notes with face value of KRW 2.1 billion to secure the above obligation to the Plaintiff.

On March 22, 2011, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 1.7 billion to the Eprotec Eproke in the name of B, and wired KRW 1.5 billion to B’s account in the name of G on the same day, and the remaining KRW 200 million was paid by the Plaintiff as a check to H’s representative director.

B, D, and Eproteves Co., Ltd. issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note causing par value of KRW 2.55 billion in order to secure the above debt for B, D, and Eproteves

(A) On April 8, 2011, 201, Gyeong Savings Bank Co., Ltd. filed an application for commencing a rehabilitation procedure with respect to B on each of the loans set forth in paragraphs (a) through (c) above (hereinafter “the loans of this case”). On the other hand, Gyeong Savings Bank Co., Ltd. filed an application with this court for commencing a rehabilitation procedure with respect to B on April 8, 2011, it is presumed that B was in excess of its obligation as of the above date of application. On February 2010, 2010, 1 Co., Ltd. I, the largest shareholder upon accepting B and managing the corporate seal of B through H, the representative director of B, and issued a promissorysory note No. 1, the transaction cause presumed to have been apparent as the act of breach of trust or embezzlement. On the other hand, in relation to B’s financial flow, the reason of delisting was caused by the external auditor’s expression of the opinion of refusal of audit, thereby making it difficult to conduct its normal business.