On September 9, 2011, the Defendant entered into a performance guarantee insurance contract (hereinafter “instant guarantee insurance contract”) with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.”) to guarantee the performance of the obligation to be borne by the Defendant by providing the equipment for filtering materials and taking clothes (hereinafter “the instant guarantee insurance contract”). In the event the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. has paid the insurance money after fulfilling the said guaranteed obligation, the Defendant shall pay the insurance money paid by the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. and the delayed payment damages interest rate shall be 6% per annum from the day following the payment date of the insurance money to the 30th day after the payment date, 9% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment, and 15% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment. The Plaintiff at the time agreed upon the Defendant’s request by the Plaintiff who was in a position of managing the Defendant’s regular business.

Since then, the defendant waived the implementation of the supply contract between the Korea hydroelectric Energy, and the Seoul Guarantee Insurance paid 390,500,000 won to the Korea hydroelectric Energy in accordance with the above guarantee insurance contract.

The Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. filed a claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap569481. On October 8, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to Seoul Guarantee Insurance 390,500,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 21, 2014 to July 20, 2014; 6% per annum from the following day to September 18, 2014; 9% per annum from the next day to November 3, 2014; and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (hereinafter “instant judgment”); and the said judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

[Ground of recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 1, and the purport of the whole argument, and the trust guarantor of legal doctrine related to the judgment of the whole purport of the pleading is in accordance with Article 442 of