1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,276,281,658 and KRW 500,000,000 among them.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 1, 2005, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against the Defendants and C and D with the Cheongju District Court 2004Kahap3328 Claims, etc., and rendered judgment to the effect that “the Defendants jointly and severally with C and the Plaintiff KRW 547,657,452, and KRW 547,657,452 from November 25, 2003 to February 24, 2004, the amount of KRW 14% per annum from February 25, 2004 to September 18, 2004, and KRW 20% per annum from September 19, 2004 to the date of full payment.”

As to this, Defendant B appealed as Daejeon High Court 2005Na13156, and was sentenced to the dismissal of appeal on July 26, 2006. Supreme Court Decision 2006Da57858, however, Supreme Court Decision 2006Da57858 was dismissed on November 10, 2006, which became final and conclusive on November 15, 2006.

B. The Plaintiff is from the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund on September 27, 2012.

The Defendants, as described in paragraph (1), received claims, such as indemnity money (hereinafter “instant claim for transfer money”), and the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund notified the Defendants of the assignment of claims as above.

C. Of the instant claim for takeover, the balance of the subrogated principal is KRW 547,657,452, and the damages for delay until September 7, 2015 is KRW 776,281,658.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts established prior to the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the acquisition amount of KRW 1,276,281,658 (i.e., KRW 500,000,000,000, out of the balance of the subrogated principal, to September 7, 2015), and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 20,000,000 per annum from September 8, 2015 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

As to this, Defendant B only served as a factory manager of Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and did not actually serve as a director of the Defendant Company, which is the representative director of the Defendant Company.