1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff loaned each of the loans of KRW 1.2 billion on January 16, 2002 and KRW 200 million on March 25, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “instant loans”) to E Co., Ltd. operated by the Defendants under the guarantee of the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund (85% of the guarantee ratio), and the Defendants jointly and severally guaranteed each of the above loans.

B. After that, the instant loan obligations were succeeded to D (hereinafter “D”) established by the Defendants with the consent of the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund. On May 27, 2011, a credit transaction agreement and a letter of credit guarantee between the Plaintiff, D and the Defendants were prepared as follows:

The due date of the lending date maturity (won) is 9.9% Defendants 39 million won per annum on May 24, 2013, 201, the guarantee limit (won) for joint and several sureties 1, 201, and 12.54% per annum on May 27, 201, 200,000 Defendants 39.9% per annum on May 24, 2013, 201, 12.54% per annum on May 23, 2012, 200,000 Defendants 15.3.5 billion won per annum, and 987 million won per annum 1925 million.

C. D’s delayed repayment of the instant loan. On January 29, 2013, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation paid 849,241,549 won (i.e., 171,386, 268, 677,85,281) of the instant loan to the Plaintiff, and 5,024,238 won of interest and delay damages (i.e., 619,8074,404,431) and the remaining principal and interest of the Plaintiff D as of October 16, 2017.

(Units: 25,162, 319 118,050,000 damages for delay 15,79,256,2568,147,339 40,961,575 206,197,339 247,158,914 / [Reasons for Recognition] Partial dispute, Gap 1,2,3339 / [3] 25,2,339 / [3] 247,158,914

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff sought payment of the remaining principal and interest within the scope of each guarantee limit against the Defendants, a joint and several surety of the instant loan, and the Defendants asserted that each immunity decision was exempted.

The main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act shall be subject to immunity.