(However, according to the above facts, the "creditor" is deemed to be the "Plaintiff" and the "debtor" to be the "defendant". 2. According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 1,517,330,695 won, such as the subrogated payment, and the amount of subrogated payment based on the first guarantee to the plaintiff 114,252,335 won, which is the date of subrogation, for the amount of 1,398,649,087 won based on the second and third guarantees, which is the date of subrogation, from November 1, 2019 to December 30, 2019, which is the date of service of the original copy of the payment order in this case, 8% per annum, which is the rate of delay delay damages, and from the next day to the date of full payment, 12% per annum per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that since the Plaintiff seized the Defendants’ assets (real estate and investment certificates), the value of the assets seized in the claim amount should be deducted from the claim amount. Thus, the seizure is effective only when the disposition is prohibited, but the seizure does not take effect, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was paid a part of the instant debt amount through the seizure procedure. Thus, the value of the assets seized in the amount of subrogated by the Plaintiff cannot be deducted.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

4. If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the ground of its reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.