1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 45,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from November 29, 2013 to January 20, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 30, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) and the Defendant Co., Ltd. to provide credit guarantee for 90% of the loans under an agreement on loans for corporate purchase funds to be borne by Nonparty Industrial Bank of Korea.

B. The Defendant Company is a company that entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Industrial Bank of Korea, and Defendant B is the representative of the Defendant Company, and Defendant C is the representative of the “E” that was a subordinate supplier of the Defendant Company, who received a corporate purchase loan from the Industrial Bank of Korea, and Defendant D was the employee of the Defendant Company.

C. On June 5, 2013, Defendant C and Defendant C, by deceiving the Industrial Bank of Korea by means of preparing a false electronic commerce contract as if they were engaged in a false transaction amounting to KRW 50,000,000 without any actual transaction, and Defendant C received KRW 50,000,000 from the Industrial Bank of Korea (hereinafter “instant loan”).

On June 5, 2013, Defendant D received KRW 45,00,000, which is a part of the instant loans from Defendant C in order to receive wages in arrears from Defendant B, and deposited it in accordance with Defendant B’s instructions.

E. On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 45,000,000, which is 90% of the instant loans, upon the Industrial Bank of Korea’s request to discharge guaranteed liabilities.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Defendants, as to the cause of the claim, are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages sustained by the Plaintiff, since the Defendant Company was aware of the fact that it would make a substitute payment to the Industrial Bank of Korea in spite of its knowledge that it would have to make a substitute payment to the Industrial Bank of Korea, by deceiving the Industrial Bank of Korea and making the Plaintiff make it a substitute payment.