1. Defendant D Consumer Cooperatives, E, and F together with the Plaintiff KRW 111,830,250 on June 15, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 11, 2011, Defendant DF cooperative (hereinafter “Defendant cooperative”) entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty DF Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “FF”) on which FFF obtained the medical device of this case from EM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SM”) for KRW 595,100,00 from the acquisition cost for each of the medical devices listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the medical device of this case”), and lent it to the Defendant Cooperative for 48 months, and the Defendant Cooperative shall pay FFP 12,258,200 won monthly lease fee (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”). The Plaintiff, a representative of the Defendant Cooperative, and the director of the Defendant Cooperative, working for the Defendant E and the Defendant Cooperative, who was a director of the Defendant Cooperative, had jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the Defendant Cooperative due to the instant lease agreement.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant joint and several sureties contract”). (b)

F. On November 11, 201, enz. entered into a re-purchase agreement of the instant medical device with EM in relation to the instant lease agreement.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant repurchase agreement”) C.

Since July 2013, the Defendant Union delayed the obligation to pay the lease fees. On October 23, 2013, the Effective Capital expressed to the Defendant Union a written intent to terminate the instant lease agreement with the reason for the termination thereof, and issued a written request for the repurchase of the instant medical device to EM in accordance with the re-purchase agreement.

On the other hand, Defendant C, E, F, and B were prosecuted for fraud, etc. The Suwon District Court of the Republic of Korea: (a) in collusion with Defendant C, E, F, and B on October 27, 2015, “C, E, F, and B” (hereinafter “Defendant C, F, and B”); (b) in short, the price of the medical device in this case was set off and EM did not have the right to dispose of the medical device in this case, such as ownership; and (c) deceiving the victim from the victim’s filial capital, notwithstanding the absence of such right.