A. On November 11, 2014, a limited liability company C (hereinafter “C”) is an obligor, and the Defendant and D, as a joint and several surety, issued to the Plaintiff, who is the representative director of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) a seal on the performance plan including the following:

1) Cash of KRW 20,000,000. The Defendant paid KRW 10,000,000 as of November 11, 2014. D’s payment of KRW 10,000,000 to December 10, 2014. (2) Emergency Sale of KRW 80,000,000 as of the seventh floor of Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Ftel, and KRW 50,000,00, out of the construction cost of the electronic room expansion (electric) in 2014 (former), C was implemented, and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 80,000,00 as an assignment order until December 31, 2014; and (3) the Plaintiff was paid KRW 50,500,000 in total as of November 1, 2014 to April 3, 2015; and (4) the Plaintiff did not dispute over the entire payment of KRW 50,000.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a deposit of KRW 97,00,000 (i.e., KRW 20,000,000,000,000 - KRW 53,000,000) as well as damages for delay at each rate of KRW 67,060,295, which is the day following the final due date for payment, from January 1, 2016 until February 26, 2016, the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and KRW 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from the next day to the day of full payment, to the day of full payment.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s above claim was transferred from E, and E received KRW 9,993,943 from the Gwangju District Court 2015TT to the claim against Gwangju Metropolitan City, and received KRW 9,993,943 by accepting the seizure and collection order of the claim against Gwangju Metropolitan City. On May 20, 2015, Gwangju District Court 2015, received KRW 27,908,231 upon receiving the seizure and collection order of the claim against Gwangju Metropolitan City. Therefore, the above claim was entirely extinguished.

However, in light of evidence evidence Nos. 5 to 7, 10 to 13, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is each of the above.