A. On June 27, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with Defendant A as stipulated by the term of guarantee (20,000,000) and issued a credit guarantee agreement as of June 27, 2017, and provided credit guarantee for the principal and interest of loan that Defendant A received from a new bank.

B. From December 2007, Defendant A operated a restaurant with the trade name “D” in Pyeongtaek-si C, which was closed on October 12, 2012.

Defendant A failed to pay the principal and interest of loan to the above new bank, and on December 6, 2013, the Plaintiff repaid 20,252,539 won of the principal and interest of loan under credit guarantee to the new bank on December 6, 2013, and thereafter recovered 79,710 won and recovered 20,172,829 won of the amount of subrogation.

The fixed delay damages according to the collection amount are 30 won, and the fixed delay damages rate for the payment by subrogation is 14% per annum until May 31, 2015, and 12% per annum thereafter.

C. Defendant B opened and operated a restaurant in the trade name “E” in Pyeongtaek-si C on October 9, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant A accepted the Plaintiff’s claim of this case regarding the claim against Defendant A.

Therefore, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of subrogated payment of KRW 20,172,859 (the amount of subrogated payment of KRW 20,172,829 and the amount of delay delay damages of KRW 20,172,829) and 14% per annum from December 6, 2013 to May 31, 2015, the date of subrogated payment of KRW 20,172,829, the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the following day to April 15, 2016, and delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the "E" restaurant operated by the defendant Eul and the "D" operated by the defendant A are identical to the main parts of the two restaurants, and the business purpose is also the two restaurants.