1. Lawsuits between the Plaintiff, Defendant A Co., Ltd., and D are final and conclusive on November 2, 2018, as a decision of recommending reconciliation.

1. The fact that the original copy of the decision of recommending reconciliation made on November 2, 2018 against the Plaintiff, Defendant A, and D was served on the Plaintiff on November 5, 2018, Defendant A, and D respectively, and the fact that the Plaintiff, Defendant A, and D were served on the Plaintiff on November 7, 2018, and that the Plaintiff, Defendant A, and D were not filed an objection within two weeks, is apparent in the record.

Therefore, the lawsuit between the plaintiff, defendant A, and D was terminated on November 22, 2018 as the decision of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive.

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. 1) On October 29, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with F as follows, and E stand joint and several surety. Following the occurrence of a credit guarantee accident on April 20, 2017, F lost the benefit of time around that time (final defective treatment on June 22, 2017). Accordingly, the Plaintiff subrogated 46,481,441 won to the Loan Bank on February 7, 2018 pursuant to the said credit guarantee agreement. G2) Meanwhile, on June 1, 2017, E concluded a mortgage agreement with Defendant C and D on the real estate listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On the same day, E concluded a mortgage agreement with the maximum debt amount of KRW 20,000,000 with respect to the real estate listed in attached Table 2 list (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(3) At the time of the instant mortgage contract, E had active property equivalent to KRW 324,702,00 in total, including the value of 12m2, I road 2m2, and J road 39m2 in addition to the instant real property, on the other hand, there was a small property exceeding KRW 500,000 in total, such as K bank obligations, in addition to the obligations indicated in the instant paragraph (1).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 12 evidence (including additional numbers), the order of the court to submit taxation information on the chemical market, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of the above recognition 1, a claim for indemnity may be established in the near future when a credit guarantee contract of this case was concluded.