1. The defendant (Appointeds) and the appointed parties jointly and severally against the plaintiff KRW 165,636,460 and KRW 56,300,802.

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

[However, the 'creditor' is regarded as the plaintiff, the 'debtor B, and C', and the 'debtor A', 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the party')

B. As to the Defendant (Appointed Party)’s assertion, first of all, Defendant (Appointed Party) asserted that the final date of the judgment on the previous suit of this case became final and conclusive is B and C on June 23, 2007, and Defendant (Appointed Party) applied for the payment order of this case on July 28, 2017, 10 years after the lapse of 10 years thereafter. However, in full view of the overall purport of arguments as indicated in the evidence Nos. 6 and 7, Defendant (Appointed Party)’s assertion, first of all, Defendant (Appointed Party) asserted that the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute total amount of KRW 29,237,430 to the Plaintiff, who is the person holding the provisional attachment right and the right to demand distribution, and that the payment order of this case was concluded on June 28, 2007 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da28786, Mar. 28, 2008).

However, with respect to an auction guarantee contract concluded on November 14, 2005, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had a duty to notify as alleged by the Defendant (Appointed Party) and Article 436-2 of the Civil Act is a newly established provision on February 3, 2015.