1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 179,871,288 as well as the interest rate from July 3, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 4, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a credit transaction agreement with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”), setting the credit limit amount of KRW 318,60,000, the equal repayment of principal and interest, the agreed rate of KRW 15.7% per annum, and the late payment penalty rate of KRW 318,60,000, with Defendant A.

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”), C, and D entered into a joint and several guarantee agreement with Defendant A to provide joint and several surety for the obligation based on the credit transaction agreement with the Plaintiff.

C. Defendant A did not pay the principal and interest to the Plaintiff, and the amount of credit as of July 3, 2014 is KRW 179,871,288.

[Ground of recognition] Facts that there is no dispute against Defendant C, each entry of Gap1 to 16 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, according to the credit transaction agreement, Defendant A is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 179,871,288, and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from July 3, 2014 to the date of full payment.

B. Defendant D asserted that, at the time of the preparation of an agreement, he was in blank with no indication of the terms and conditions of the loan, and that, since blanks were filled after then, the Plaintiff should prove that the filled portion was based on the legitimate source of authority delegated by the Defendant.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the blank was in blank at the time of preparation of the joint and several surety agreement, and that there was no evidence to prove that the blank was filled.

C. Defendant D asserts to the effect that there is no effect of guarantee agreement in the case of a special law for the protection of guarantor, and there is a problem in the enforcement of the Plaintiff’s bonds.

However, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, Defendant D is in the same or parent-subsidiary relationship with Defendant A at the time of joint and several sureties agreement.