The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

All of the claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed as the same.

Facts of recognition

Plaintiff

A was the representative director of the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter “C”) at the time of March 29, 2011.

The Korea Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Savings Bank") was declared bankrupt on February 28, 2013 and the defendant was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy on the same day.

On March 29, 2011, the Plaintiff Company entered into a credit transaction agreement with the Korea Savings Bank, setting the credit limit amount of 50 million won, interest rate of 13% per annum on March 29, 2012, delay damages rate of 23% per annum (hereinafter “the instant credit transaction agreement”). On the same day, Plaintiff A entered into a credit transaction agreement with the Korea Savings Bank covering up to 650 million won for the Plaintiff Company’s current debt to the Korea Savings Bank based on the said credit transaction agreement and for all other debt due to the future credit transaction with the amount of 650 million won.

(hereinafter “instant joint and several guarantee agreement”). On June 21, 201, between Korea Savings Bank and Korea Savings Bank, the Plaintiff Company entered into a credit transaction agreement to change the maximum amount of the instant credit transaction agreement to KRW 650 million (hereinafter “instant additional credit transaction agreement”), and the Plaintiff A entered into a joint and several guarantee agreement (hereinafter “instant additional joint and several guarantee agreement”).

During the period from March 9, 2011 to January 27, 2012, Korea Savings Bank implemented a loan of KRW 649,533,831 through a deposit account (Account Number D) in the name of the Plaintiff Company.

The interest on the above loan was paid until January 27, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 10, the same shall apply to the non-satisfy.

The plaintiffs defense that Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and 3 were forged, but considering the respective statements Nos. 1 and 4, and the overall purport of testimony and arguments of the first instance court E and F, each of the above documents was directly prepared by the plaintiff A or the plaintiff.