1. The defendant jointly and severally with the non-party 1 Construction Co., Ltd. and the plaintiff 2,076,031,816 and 890 among them.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Mutual Savings Bank”) extended loans to Dried Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dried Construction”) on September 15, 2006 by setting the credit limit of 1.96 million won and overdue interest rate of 23% per annum.

At the time, Defendant (C Co., Ltd.) and B jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations for building construction.

On the other hand, the defendant's limit of collateral guarantee is 2.94 million won.

B. Seoul Mutual Savings Bank was declared bankrupt on September 26, 2013 (this Court Decision 2013Hau139).

The plaintiff was appointed as bankruptcy trustee.

C. The principal and interest on a loan for dried Construction as of November 17, 2014 is KRW 3,460,053,026 (i.e., principal KRW 1,484,849,690 until November 16, 2014).

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry (including paper numbers) in Gap evidence 1-8 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts established by the Defendant’s joint and several liability, the Defendant, a joint and several surety, is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2,076,031,816 as part of the principal and interest of the loan until November 16, 2014, the amount calculated by the rate of 23% per annum from November 17, 2014, which is the day following the date of final calculation of interest to the day of full payment, to the day of full payment, to the Plaintiff within the limit of KRW 2,940,00,00,00, which is the limit of the amount of arrears guarantee.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the agreement on the loan of this case contains a description of “D” in the name of the Defendant, and thus, it is not a legitimate contract. (2) According to the evidence No. 4, the Defendant’s representative at the time is recognized as a joint representative director E and D, and thus, the Defendant’s “D” as stated in the Defendant’s name is a legitimate representative among the joint representative directors.

On the other hand, according to the evidence No. 6, the defendant is liable for the above loan obligations for dry Construction through a resolution of the board of directors at the time.