A. On December 25, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a credit guarantee agreement between the Defendant and the guaranteed amount of KRW 100 million, and the credit guarantee agreement and the guaranteed amount of KRW 200 million on December 15, 2016, and the guarantee period of KRW 13,00,000, respectively.

B. The Defendant received operating funds from the Industrial Bank of Korea as collateral for the Plaintiff’s guarantee under the aforementioned credit guarantee agreement.

C. On February 3, 2017, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 303,456,461 in total, at the request of the Industrial Bank of Korea due to the occurrence of a credit guarantee accident.

The rate of delayed damage under the credit guarantee agreement is 10% per annum, and damages for delay incurred in 20,503,909 won appropriated for subrogation out of recovered money is 752,746 won.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 10% per annum from February 3, 2017 to July 31, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the claim purport and the application for change of the cause of the claim as of July 31, 2017, which is the date of delivery of the copy of the claim as of February 3, 2017, as of the date of subrogation, as to the total amount of the remainder of the subrogated payment and the fixed damages for delay as of July 283, 705,298, and remaining amount of subrogation as of February 282, 952,52,552, and the remainder

The defendant asserts to the effect that the purchase price of the machinery offered as security exceeds KRW 100 million, and that the money appropriated for the bonds is too low.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 4 and all pleadings, the sale price of the transferred property was KRW 32.1 million on June 14, 2017, and the plaintiff received KRW 22,816,119, subtracting KRW 9,283,881, which was returned to the company bank among them, and the amount remaining after preferentially appropriating for expenses, etc. can be acknowledged as being appropriated for the principal of the subrogated payment. However, the plaintiff sold the transferred property to the company bank as an excessive salt in breach of his/her duty of care.