1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A’s KRW 56,124,936 and for this, 12% per annum from April 19, 2013 to August 31, 2015;

1. The facts in the separate sheet concerning the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties or can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence (including each number). Thus, according to the credit guarantee agreement concluded between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the defendant A is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 56,124,936 won (i.e., principal interest of 54,000,124,936 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from April 19, 2013 to August 31, 2015, and from the next day to the next day of delivery of the complaint of this case until June 17, 2016, the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 8% per annum 15% per annum from the next day to the next day of the final delivery of the complaint of this case, the remaining damages for delay from the 15th day to the next day of the payment of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff 16.

2. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B thought that a real lease contract was entered into with Defendant A, prepared a lease contract, and received KRW 3,000,000 from Defendant A as a penalty for breach of contract, and asserted that the rest of Defendants did not participate in tort. At the same time, Defendant B asserts to the effect that even if some responsibility exists, the responsibility should be limited by considering the negligence of the Plaintiff and the lending bank.

First of all, the evidence presented by Defendant B alone regarding the assertion that he did not participate in the instant loan fraud crime is reversed and Defendant B did not participate in the instant loan fraud crime.