1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 1,057,00,000 and KRW 650,000,000 among them, from February 5, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 23, 2009, Defendant A entered into a credit transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant credit transaction agreement”) with the effect that KRW 650,000,000 from the Hanju Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (Korea Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Korea Mutual Savings Bank”) was changed to “Korea Mutual Savings Bank” on May 6, 201; hereinafter “Korea Mutual Savings Bank”) at an annual interest rate of KRW 9% per annum, damages rate for delay, 23% per annum, and on December 23, 2010, Defendant A received general loans (hereinafter “the instant credit transaction agreement”).

B. Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant A’s obligation to pay a loan to the Plaintiff based on the instant credit transaction agreement with the guarantee limit of KRW 845 billion.5 billion.

C. On February 4, 2015, Defendant A did not repay the loan principal amounting to KRW 650 million, interest and overdue interest amounting to KRW 47 billion.

On the other hand, the non-party bank was declared bankrupt on February 28, 2013 by Daejeon District Court 2013Hahap2, and the plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 17 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the determination as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1.57 million in balance of the principal and interest of the loan (= KRW 650 million in total) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 23% per annum, which is the agreed damages rate for delay from February 5, 2015 to the date of full payment, to the date of full payment. Defendant B is liable to pay the amount of KRW 845 million in total within the limit of the guarantee limit.

3. On the determination of the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants requested the Defendant B to the effect that “A bank, which was Nonparty C, borrowed a loan under the name of a third party due to a large number of non-performing loans, requested the Defendant B to lend the above non-performing loans to the third party, and Defendant B.