1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to KRW 47,841,634 and KRW 47,394,220 among Defendant A, from September 7, 2012 to November 30, 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. The conclusion of a credit guarantee agreement by Defendant A and the Plaintiff’s performance of the guaranteed obligation are as stated in the ground of claim.

B. Defendant C’s employment-related documents (1) delivered employment-related documents issued in the name of Defendant C to the Korean bank, and received a loan from the Korean bank as collateral for the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee fund guarantee from the Korean bank.

(2) Defendant A and Defendant C were subject to criminal punishment (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013Ma908, 1328) for the following criminal facts.

On April 2010, the name-based person wishing to receive a loan but it is difficult to obtain a loan from a financial institution in a normal way, and suggested that he will receive a loan from a third party with a false employment-related document and a false housing lease-related document, and the defendant A accepted it.

At that time, although Defendant A had not been employed as a staff member of State A, Defendant A prepared documents related to employment, such as a false certificate of employment under the name of State C representative, which was named as the staff member of State D, and Defendant C reported falsely to the National Health Insurance Corporation as the staff of State D, upon request of the person who was not killed in the name and received the request from the National Health Insurance Corporation.

At the G real estate office located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F around that time, Defendant A prepared a false lease agreement with the lessor B, stating the lessor B as the lessor’s deposit KRW 180 million and the lessor B and the lessee A.

After that, on May 3, 2010, Defendant A will take Defendant A into the care of the victim bank branch in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seoul, and Defendant A applied for a loan of 54 million won to an employee in charge of loans in the name of the above bank. The fact is that the above bank did not intend to implement the lease contract and did not have worked for the above company. However, the loan is actually a deposit for lease on a deposit basis, even though it did not have any intention to perform the lease contract and did not have worked for the above company.