1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) for KRW 311,347,079 and its amount from January 26, 2017.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of credit business, etc., and the Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is a corporation with the purpose of refined meat wholesale and retail business.

Defendant B is the representative director of Defendant A.

B. On November 18, 2015, the Plaintiff and Defendant A entered into a loan agreement with the Plaintiff to borrow business funds (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) by setting the lending limit of KRW 500,000,000, and the transaction period from November 18, 2015 to November 17, 2016.

At the time, Defendant A entered into a transfer security agreement with the purport of providing the imported freezing land as a security for transfer to the Plaintiff in order to secure the loan.

C. On November 18, 2015, Defendant B agreed to provide a joint and several surety to the Plaintiff with a loan obligation to be borne by Defendant A under the instant loan agreement (hereinafter “instant joint and several surety agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Defendant A received a total of KRW 477,00,000 from the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant loan agreement, and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant A’s loan obligation.

As the repayment period stipulated in the instant loan agreement was January 25, 2017, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining loans of KRW 311,347,079 (=47,00,000 - 165,652,921) and damages for delay.

The Plaintiff asserts that “the claim for payment on the ground of Defendant A’s loss of benefit on the date of pleading for the transfer prior to the date of pleading,” but it is reasonable to view that the claim was implicitly withdrawn upon the submission of the application for modification of the claim and the cause of the claim as of July 3, 2017.

B. The Defendants 1’ obligation to pay the Defendant A’s loan ought to be fulfilled in preference to the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the transferred security, but Defendant A is transferred for transfer to the Plaintiff.