A. On November 8, 2016, Defendant A borrowed KRW 15,000,00 from an enterprise bank under the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee.

B. On November 9, 2018, Defendant A delayed the repayment of the principal of the above loan.

Accordingly, on March 22, 2019, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 11,590,922 to a corporate bank.

C. At the time of the above credit guarantee agreement, Defendant A agreed to pay expenses incurred by the Plaintiff in order to preserve or execute the claim for reimbursement. The Plaintiff spent KRW 89,226 at the above expense, and the interest rate for delay determined under the above credit guarantee agreement is 9% per annum.

Meanwhile, Defendant A entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant B regarding each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on July 17, 2018 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000,000, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on July 18, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, 10, and 11; fact-finding with the head of Seo-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City in the Daejeon Metropolitan City; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the claim against the defendant A, the defendant A is obligated to pay the plaintiff the total amount of 11,680,148 won for indemnity (=1,590,922 won for subrogation + 89,226 won for the preservation of claims) and 11,590,922 won for subrogation, which is the date of subrogation, to the plaintiff, 9% per annum, which is the rate of damages for agreement, from March 22, 2019 to September 20, 2019 when the copy of the complaint of this case was served, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, at the time of entering into a mortgage contract, the Defendants did not actually generate the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against the Defendant A, but there had already been a legal relationship that forms the basis of the claim for reimbursement, and concluded a mortgage contract.