2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3...

A. 1) On May 25, 2006, Han Bank lent KRW 360,000,000 to Defendant A Co., Ltd., and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

(2) On October 15, 2013, a company Hanmon Savings Bank notified the Defendants of the fact of transferring the claim under paragraph (1) to Solomon Savings Bank. On the other hand, in the auction procedure of real estate provided as security of the claim under paragraph (1), the company Solomon Savings Bank received a demand for distribution of the total amount of KRW 357,930,590 and interest of KRW 212,517,667,257, but only KRW 399,89,889,89, and only KRW 170,789,330 by preferentially allocating the dividend to the principal, and only KRW 170,789,330 is remaining. [No evidence No. 1, No. 2, No. 34, and No. 4, No. 134, and the purport of the entire pleadings].

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for payment of KRW 80,00,000 to the Plaintiff out of KRW 170,789,330, which the Plaintiff seeks.

2. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B offered real estate as collateral while concluding the instant loan agreement. Defendant B asserted to the effect that the solomon Savings Bank was partly repaid the principal and interest pursuant to the instant loan agreement at the auction procedure for the said real estate, and thus, Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable.

However, the defendant's assertion is without merit, since the collateral for the loan is put up for auction and even if the creditor received part of the loan in the auction procedure, if the debt is not fully repaid, the remaining debt is not extinguished.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.