1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant A’s KRW 88,764,863 and KRW 23,975,965 among them:

B. Defendant B is Defendant A.

1. In full view of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid balance of the principal and interest and delay damages as of September 18, 2016, as shown in the attached Form No. 1.

2. As to Defendant B’s assertion, the Defendant asserts to the effect that “The guarantee has no effect since there was no date or signature written in the guarantee contract.”

In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, in cases where the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff’s claim (Seoul Eastern District Court 2006da55433) is confirmed, and in exceptional cases such as interruption of prescription are allowed due to special circumstances, the judgment in favor of the new suit does not conflict with the judgment in favor of the final judgment in favor of the previous suit. Thus, the subsequent suit court cannot re-examine whether all the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557 Decided October 28, 2010). Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is not permissible against the res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment in a prior suit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and all of them are accepted.