A. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 6, and Eul evidence No. 1.

On March 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods, such as Category IV (hereinafter referred to as “instant supply contract”).

In order to guarantee the obligation under the instant supply contract, Czek entered into a payment guarantee agreement with the Defendant to guarantee the performance of the purchase price for goods from May 9, 2013 to May 9, 2014; and issued a payment guarantee issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on June 13, 2014.

The Plaintiff supplied the goods to Corbe in accordance with the instant supply contract, but there was an outstanding amount equivalent to KRW 2,315,826,740 on April 2014.

Accordingly, on May 9, 2014 and July 4, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the above fact and claimed the performance of the guaranteed obligation of KRW 500 million.

B. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 500 million payment deposit and the damages for delay from July 10, 2014, as claimed by the Plaintiff, as a result of the Plaintiff’s request for performance.

2. Defenses;

A. The summary of the claim 1) The Defendant, on March 20, 2015, pays 500 million won to the Plaintiff, which is the primary debtor, and the Defendant’s guarantee liability is asserted that the aforementioned payment was extinguished due to the repayment of the primary obligation, as it was designated to cover “the obligation of KRW 500 million, which the Defendant is liable to guarantee” out of the primary obligation. 2) If the obligor bears several obligations for the same kind of obligation to the same creditor, and the provision of performance is not extinguished due to the same kind of obligation, the obligor may designate any of the obligations at the time and appropriate it for the repayment.

Article 476 of the Civil Code.