A. On December 19, 2008, Korea Exchange Bank extended a loan of KRW 80 million (ms. 1Y3% and damages for delay rate 19% per annum) to the public-private partnership on December 19, 2008.

B. The Defendant set the guarantee limit of the same day as KRW 650 million and jointly and severally guaranteed the principal and interest of the loan of the Centke Co., Ltd.

C. The above principal and interest claim was transferred to the Korea Exchange Bank, the Korean National Bank, the Korea EF&A Co., Ltd., the Korea AF&A Co., Ltd., the limited company specializing in the secondary securitization, the limited company specializing in EF securitization, and the Ebbrid Co., Ltd., in accordance with the procedure for the acquisition of assets and the assignment of claims, and the Plaintiff finally acquired it on September 30, 2013.

In September 30, 2013, the principal of the above loans that were not repaid as of September 30, 2013 is KRW 66,285,430.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 6, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant, as a joint and several surety of Centk Co., Ltd., is obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of 66,285,430 won of the principal of the loan that was not repaid to the Plaintiff as well as 19% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate from October 1, 2013 to April 25, 2014, which is the delivery date of the instant payment order, and 20% per annum, which is stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant's assertion is arguing to the effect that the defendant is unable to repay the debt first before the corporation while the bankruptcy procedure is in progress against the public-private partnership company, which is the principal debtor. However, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as a exemption or postponement of the defendant's guaranteed debt, and the defendant's argument

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.