1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 913,517,807 and KRW 210,252,229 among them.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Korea Technology Finance Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Technology Finance Corporation”) (hereinafter “Korea Technology Finance Corporation”) granted credit guarantee to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) with respect to its returned liabilities when receiving a loan from a financial institution.

(Guarantee Number D, E.F., Defendant C, and B were jointly and severally and severally guaranteed the liability for indemnity to be borne by the Defendant Company to the Non-Party Fund in the future.

B. The defendant company caused a credit guarantee accident, and the non-party company paid 241,714,080 won by subrogation in accordance with the credit guarantee agreement on December 30, 1993.

The non-party fund received a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit against the Defendants and F for the claim for reimbursement.

(Seoul District Court 1996Kadan13239, Seoul Central District Court 2006Kadan346082).

On September 27, 2012, Nonparty Fund transferred to the Plaintiff the principal of the remainder indemnity amount of KRW 210,252,229 and incidental claims, and notified the Defendants of the assignment of claims on November 1, 2012.

The sum of the principal and damages for delay of the claim for indemnity accrued until June 30, 2012 is KRW 913,517,807 (principal KRW 210,252,229, KRW 703,265,578).

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, according to the credit guarantee agreement and the final judgment of the lawsuit claiming indemnity amount, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff, the assignee of the claim for indemnity amount, 913,517,807 won and 210,252,229 won per annum from July 1, 2012 to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that: (a) the Defendant Company terminated its business and died of a representative liquidator; and (b) Defendant B did not claim the performance of the obligation any longer by the Korea Technology Finance Corporation around 2003; and (c) thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

C. However, the above reasons (i) do not constitute grounds to block the Plaintiff’s claim, and (ii) do not constitute grounds to deny it.