1. The defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party in excess of the amount which orders payment under the following among the judgments of the first instance court:

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows, except where the defendant (appointed party; hereinafter "the defendant") makes an additional statement on the matters alleged in the trial, or the part of "4. decision from No. 12 to No. 14." in the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except where the defendant (appointed party; hereinafter "the defendant") makes an additional statement on the matters alleged in the trial, or the part of "4. decision from No. 12 to No. 14. 14."

【Additional Decision-Making Matters】 Judgment on the Defendant’s defense of offset

A. The defendant asserts that the defendant company set off the plaintiff's claim on behalf of the plaintiff under the Daegu High Court case 2009Na8322 (principal lawsuit), 2009Na839 (Counterclaim), and the claim on the judgment (1,120,920 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from September 29, 2009 to June 23, 2011, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment).

B. The surety may set off against the obligee by setting-off against the obligee with the claim held by the principal obligor against the obligee (Article 434 of the Civil Act). In a case where the obligor has several set-off claims in several set-offs, and the obligor’s automatic claim is insufficient to extinguish the entire claim, the surety shall determine the claim set-off by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions on the appropriation

(Article 499, 476, and 477 of the Civil Act). Upon entering into the instant guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff on October 11, 2005, the Defendant Company entered into the instant guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff, with respect to all the ancillary obligations, such as substitute payments, legal procedure costs, and litigation costs, with the Plaintiff added the Plaintiff’s damages, and agreed to immediately pay them. The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation. The Daegu District Court 2007Kahap1518, which was filed against the Defendant Company around 2007, was the appellate court.