1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts used or added as follows.

3 11 parallels "No. 20175" shall be written by 175.

Of December 2, 2007, C opened 167,00 shares of the Defendant Company to H and offered it as security. C on August 18, 2008, the Defendant Company’s shares was offered as additional security to H on August 19, 2008, and entered the said shares into the K Company’s account designated by H on August 19, 2008. Since then H transferred part of the claim against H to H, and then transferred 167,00 shares of the Defendant Company that entered into the said account to H and transferred 167,00 shares to the said account.”

5 The following shall be added between the 10th parallel and the 11th parallel:

“F. The Defendant Company filed an application for the commencement of rehabilitation procedures with the Changwon District Court 2010 Gohap3 on January 11, 2010 with respect to the Defendant Company, and the said court rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures on February 8, 2010 (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedures”).

) At the time, F, which had been the representative director of the Defendant Company, was appointed as the administrator of the above rehabilitation procedure. On November 15, 2010, the rehabilitation procedure of this case was completed on December 26, 2012, according to the rehabilitation procedure completion decision, which was concluded on December 26, 2012. The evidence Nos. 1, 13, 15, 20, 30, and 4, 12, 13, 14, and 17 were added to the evidence No. 5-11, 5-12 [based on recognition].

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The gist of the party’s assertion asserts that the Plaintiff acquired the total of KRW 49.7 million from H and J with respect to the remainder of the claim against H and J, and sought payment equivalent to the above amount against the Defendant Company that jointly and severally guaranteed the above C’s obligation.

As to this, the defendant company did not report the claim against the defendant company sought by the plaintiff as a rehabilitation claim in the rehabilitation procedure of this case.