1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 101,427,271 won and 100,659,851 won among them. From June 30, 2006 to September 29, 2006.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 11, 2007, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit for the amount of indemnity against B, C, D, and E, the primary debtor for the indemnity liability under a credit guarantee contract, with the Changwon District Court Decision 2007Kadan2490, which was the cause of claiming the payment by subrogation, and sentenced that "the defendant, B, D, and E jointly and severally shall be 108,119,684 won and 107,352,264 won to the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund and 14% per annum from June 30, 206 to September 29, 2006, and 16% per annum from the next day to February 28, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment shall be paid." The above judgment became final and conclusive.

(b) The subsequent Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund shall be the defendant or the defendant.

The plaintiff recovered KRW 6,692,413 from the joint and several suretiess stated in the paragraph and appropriated the principal out of the above judgment amount to the principal, and on September 27, 2012, the plaintiff received the remaining principal and interest claim from the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund.

(c)The Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund shall:

Around the date of assignment of claims indicated in paragraph (1), the defendant was notified of the above transfer.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff who acquired the claim from the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, and on the other hand, the lawsuit of this case filed for the purpose of the extension of prescription due to the imminent completion of the extinctive prescription after the judgment in the

B. The defendant's defense is asserted to the effect that the representative liquidator B was exempted from liability upon declaration of bankruptcy, and thus the plaintiff cannot accept the plaintiff's claim. However, the defendant's claim is also discharged from liability of the company whose representative liquidator is the debtor only on the ground that immunity decision against the liquidator became final