1. Defendant B and Defendant C jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 82,213,160 as well as the aforesaid amount from January 30, 2016 to January 30, 2016.

1. Claim against the defendant company and C

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Grounds for recognition: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

b. Claim against Defendant D, E, and F

A. (1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: Defendant C and the said Defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation at the time of the consignment agency contract, and the Plaintiff concluded a performance guarantee insurance contract with the Defendant Company on April 30, 2015 and actually jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation. As a result, Defendant C, D, E, and F, a joint and several surety under the principal contract, are in the relationship of joint and several suretys.

The plaintiff has extinguished the principal debt by the repayment to G, and there is no special agreement on the indemnity between joint and several sureties, and thus the share ratio is equal. Therefore, the plaintiff has claimed 1/5 of the amount repaid to G in accordance with Article 448 of the Civil Code.

(2) The Defendants’ assertion: Article 9 subparag. 6 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Standard Standardized Contracts Regulation Act”) provides that a contract with the objective of continuous creditor-debtor relationship shall be null and void by allowing implied extension or renewal of the period of time and allowing customers to suffer disadvantage.

The instant consignment agency contract does not have any provision concerning the period of joint and several sureties, and applying Article 29 of the contract that provides for the extension of the implied period or renewal thereof to the Defendants who are joint and several sureties is null and void in violation of the above provision of the Act on the Regulation

Therefore, the joint and several guarantee contract of this case is terminated on July 16, 2010, and thus, it cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

B. The Defendants signed and sealed the Defendant’s obligations under the consignment agency contract at the bottom of the instant consignment agency contract, and jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligations under the consignment agency contract at the bottom of the contract, and Article 29 of the consignment agency contract at the time of conclusion of the first term of validity of this contract

1 month after the expiration of the contract.