1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 188,612,709 and KRW 183,279,452 from October 24, 2006 to March 2007.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the non-party D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party Co., Ltd.") on October 14, 2003, and the defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the above agreement.

B. On October 24, 2006, the non-party company filed a claim for the performance of the guaranteed obligation against the Plaintiff by the Gwangju Bank, and the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 379,494,694 on behalf of the Gwangju Bank.

C. On July 24, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants and the non-party companies for reimbursement with the court 2006da115100, and on July 24, 2007, the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff jointly and severally with the non-party companies the amount of KRW 183,279,452 per annum from October 24, 2006 to March 21, 2007, and the amount of 14% per annum from the next day to March 21, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The above judgment was finalized on August 15, 2007.

The outstanding amount against the plaintiff's defendants is 5,33,257 won.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant C’s assertion of confession, Defendant A’s assertion of confession, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments as to Defendant A and B

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendants, a joint guarantor, are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 188,612,709 (the principal of the indemnity amount of KRW 183,279,452 by subrogation of KRW 5,33,257) and 183,279,452 (the principal of the indemnity amount) on the date of subrogation to the Plaintiff, 14% per annum from October 24, 2006 to March 21, 207, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

As to this, Defendant B asserts to the purport that it is unreasonable to make the instant claim without making an effort to recover the patent for invention under the name of the above defendant, such as taking a seizure disposition on the ground of the claim for reimbursement of this case, and executing an auction.

Therefore, the plaintiff filed the claim of this case in order to extend the extinctive prescription of the claim established by the court 2006da115100, and defendant B filed the claim of this case.