A. On July 13, 2015, the Plaintiff’s request by C, which was a military vessel; and

7. 14. C Co., Ltd. and seven military loans, each of which is KRW 80,000,000,000, as a total, were jointly and severally guaranteed by the lending company.

B. Upon C’s request, the Plaintiff on August 17, 2015 and

8. 18. Li-Friendly Savings Bank and two military companies other than Li-Friendly Savings Bank, with a total of KRW 75,000,000 loaned money to C.

C. C died on November 11, 2015.

C’s heir is the defendant who is the spouse, D and E who is the spouse.

D and E was tried on June 24, 2016 by filing a report of renunciation of inheritance with Suwon District Court No. 2016-Ma101, and on June 24, 2016, the Defendant filed a report of refusal of inheritance under the 2016-Madan102.

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1-6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff not only sought payment of the above loan, but also sought payment of KRW 80,000,000 as a joint and several surety C as a trustee guarantor, the primary debtor has lost the benefit of time, and thus, can exercise the prior right of reimbursement.

However, in cases where the trustee guarantor exercises the right to indemnity in advance against the principal obligor pursuant to Article 442 of the Civil Act, the scope of the right to indemnity as a prior claim is limited to the interest and the later-time delay damages, the amount of expenses not to be paid, and other damages which have already been incurred until the principal debtor complies with the prior claim, and the damages for delay up to the date of the full payment of the principal cannot be included in the scope of the right to indemnity. In addition, since the right to indemnity in advance claims the provision of funds for future repayment, the trustee guarantor cannot claim damages for delay

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay against the aforementioned advance reimbursement cannot be accepted. (See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da46758, Jul. 9, 2004).

Therefore, it is true.