1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to KRW 96,484,272 and KRW 95,732,162 among Defendant A, Defendant A, from November 22, 2013 to August 31, 2015.

1. The facts in the separate sheet of the plaintiff's cause of action do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as stated in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including additional numbers). Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the plaintiff compensation amounting to 96,484,272 won under the Housing Finance Credit Guarantee Contract (752,110 won, such as subrogated payment amount of KRW 95,732,162, and damages for delay after the date of subrogated payment of KRW 95,732,162, and damages for delay from the date of subrogated payment of KRW 95,732,162, and damages for delay after the date of subrogated payment.

2. Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion

A. Defendant C et al. argues to the effect that it is unfair to assume the same responsibility with Defendant B, etc. on the ground that Defendant B, etc., who was difficult to borrow a loan due to low credit rating (Defendant A), signed and sealed on the part of the lessor under the lease agreement at the end of Defendant B, etc. to pay a cooperative face-to-face loan.

In order to establish a joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act, the joint tort as well as the conspiracy among the joint tortfeasor is not required. However, if the joint tort is objectively related to the joint tort, it is sufficient if the joint tort is involved, and the damage is caused by the related joint act, and the joint tort liability is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da2181, May 8, 2001). The defendant C did not specifically conspired for the joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act.

As long as Defendant A, who wishes to obtain abnormal loan from the former, puts his/her signature on and affix his/her seal to a false lease agreement, the above Defendant’s act is against Defendant A, B, etc.