1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to KRW 112,833,119 and KRW 29,865,567 among them:

B. Defendant B is Defendant A.

1. As to the facts stated in the attached Form of the judgment on the cause of claim, the parties did not dispute or have led to confession, the Defendants are obligated to do so under Paragraph (1) of this Article.

2. Determination as to Defendant B and C’s assertion

A. Defendant B asserted that the liability should be limited by granting qualified acceptance on the deceased E’s inheritance, but Defendant B’s claim of this case against Defendant B is not seeking the performance of the deceased E’s inheritance obligation, but seeking the performance of Defendant B’s joint and several liability. Thus, Defendant B’s assertion is without merit.

B. Defendant C asserts that Defendant C does not bear the joint and several liability, since it did not consent to the extension of the due date on October 18, 2004, after consenting to the extension of the due date on October 2003 with respect to the obligation of loans to Sam-Hy Credit Cooperatives of Defendant C.

The defendant C is jointly and severally liable with the defendant A for the repayment of the above loan, since there is no evidence that the obligation of the defendant A to the Sam-Hy Credit Union due to the maturity of October 18, 2004.

Even if the repayment period of the above loan obligation was extended on or around October 18, 2004, in principle, the guarantor who guaranteed the specified fixed obligation with respect to the guaranteed obligation should bear the guaranteed obligation regardless of whether it had extended the repayment period of the guaranteed obligation without his/her consent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da90924, Aug. 30, 2012). Unless there are special circumstances, Defendant C still bears the guaranteed obligation, and thus, Defendant C’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is accepted on the grounds of merit.