1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay KRW 29,408,377 to the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant A obtained a loan of KRW 130,000,000 and KRW 20,000,000 from the Komato Savings Bank on July 20, 2010, respectively. In this case, Defendant B guaranteed each of the above loans within the limit of KRW 225,00,000,000.

(b) the interest rate of each of the above loans is 9.9% per annum and the highest interest rate for arrears shall be 21.9% per annum;

C. Defendant A lost the benefit of time by delaying the repayment of principal and interest.

On January 2, 2012, the Komato Savings Bank Co., Ltd. was decided to transfer a contract to the new Savings Bank pursuant to Article 14(2) of the Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry and announced the newspaper.

E. On August 9, 2013, the Komato Savings Bank, Inc., applied for an auction of real estate assets owned by the Defendant A, thereby receiving KRW 156,57,321 from the proceeds of sale.

F. The foregoing dividends are all principal of each of the above loans and any of the accrued interest, and the remaining obligations currently remain 29,408,377 won, as they are appropriated for the repayment of some of the accrued interest.

G. The new Savings Bank was merged with the Plaintiff Bank on April 1, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant A is deemed to have been a confession; there is no dispute over Defendant B; Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4-2; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 29,408,377 as the attempted interest of the loan.

3. As to the Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B asserted that the said obligation was discharged. The fact that Defendant B requested bankruptcy and exemption from liability under the Suwon District Court Decision 201Haak8336, Suwon District Court Decision 201Haak8336, 201, and 8336 and received a ruling of bankruptcy and exemption from liability on January 24, 2013 does not conflict between the parties.

In this regard, the plaintiff argues that the effect of immunity does not extend because the claim of this case constitutes a claim not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith.