1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 45,928,561 and KRW 45,151,301 among the Defendants.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) Indication of claims: It is as shown in the attached Form;

(b) Grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that C’s joint and several liability obligations against the Plaintiff should be mitigated or exempted in accordance with the purport of the provisions of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act, the Small and Medium Enterprises Promotion Act, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund Act, and the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund Act, etc., as the rehabilitation procedure has been implemented by the Seoul Central District Court on August 28, 2013. Even if not, it is contrary to the principle of good faith to seek the performance of joint and several liability obligations against the Defendants, a joint and several surety, a joint and several surety by the Plaintiff who agreed to authorize the rehabilitation plan to be approved.

B. The Plaintiff is a juristic person established for the purpose of contributing to the revitalization of the local economy by guaranteeing obligations of small enterprises, etc. located in Gyeonggi-do pursuant to Article 1 of the Regional Credit Guarantee Foundation Act, which is not the Credit Guarantee Fund Act, etc.

Article 30-3 of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act, Article 74-2 of the Small and Medium Enterprises Promotion Act, Article 37-3 of the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund Act does not separately stipulate the purport of reduction or exemption of joint and several liability in cases where a company is to reduce or exempt its principal obligation according to the approval of its rehabilitation plan. Article 250 (2) 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the rehabilitation plan for the principal debtor does not affect the rights of the creditor against the guarantor.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion that the plaintiff is subject to the Credit Guarantee Fund Act, etc. or the plaintiff's claim of this case is contrary to the principle of good faith is without merit.