1. The defendant shall pay KRW 1,015,379,527 to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

(a)be as shown in the reasons for the attachment to the indication of the claim and in the briefs;

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 through 11 and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) asserts that the Defendant did not have consented to the extension of the repayment period of the instant loan. However, according to the written evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 11, the Defendant’s credit limit of the instant loan was changed from KRW 10 billion to KRW 5.377 billion, and the transaction period was extended from January 23, 1998 to June 30, 2014, and the Defendant, who is a joint and several surety, has consented explicitly or implicitly to the extension of the payment period of the instant loan, and thus, the Defendant cannot accept the assertion contrary thereto. 2) The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the instant loan as the representative director or the director, and the Defendant was not bound by the company management from around August 2013. The Defendant asserts that it is unreasonable that the Defendant is liable for the joint and several liability of the Defendant with respect to the total amount of the instant interest in arrears.

However, since the obligation of the instant loan is clear that it was a loan obligation incurred before the Defendant expressed his/her intention to terminate the contract of the instant joint and several sureties, the obligation of the instant loan has an effect on the joint and several sureties as well as the interest in arrears of KRW 1,015,379,527, which

In addition, the amount of the principal obligation to be returned to the guarantor’s burden exceeds the extent that the guarantor had anticipated or could have anticipated at the time of guarantee, and the liability of the guarantor is reasonable only in cases where circumstances are acknowledged that are contrary to the good faith principle, such as where the obligee knew that the cause of excess of the principal obligation significantly aggravated the property status of the principal obligor due to gross negligence or intentionally expanding the transaction size without any notification or intention.