1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,600,000,000 and the interest rate from March 18, 2009 to the day of full payment.

1. The facts stated in the attached Form No. 1, which the plaintiff asserted as the cause of the claim in this case, do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence No. 1, No. 11.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the balance of the loans of this case 1,600,000,000 won and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from March 18, 2009 to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment as to the defendants' major arguments

A. The Defendants asserted that the loan contract of this case is null and void because the Jeju Savings Bank, an affiliate to the Jeju Savings Bank, illegally extended loans to C for the purpose of resolving such violation of the limit on loan amount by the same person while it already extended loans in excess of the limit on loan amount to C (hereinafter “C”), but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion by the Defendants. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendants asserted that, at the time of the conclusion of the instant loan agreement, a joint and several surety contract is null and void, as they are subject to intimidation to resign if they do not stand joint and several surety obligations under the instant loan agreement from D, the substantial private company of C.

However, the Defendants entered into a joint and several guarantee agreement with the Defendants under the circumstances where the Defendants completely deprived of the room for decision making.

The Defendants’ joint and several liability contract is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendants’ joint and several liability contract is a defective declaration of intent in which fear was made due to the notice of unlawful harm, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit

C. The Defendants, even though C did not perform the obligation of loans under the loan agreement of this case for not less than three years, the Plaintiff, the guarantor, is the Defendants.