2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 14.05% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate from March 2, 2016 to April 12, 2016, as to the total of KRW 209,751,012, and the principal of the loan, and the total of KRW 129,876,000,00,000, from March 2, 2016 to April 12, 2016, the original copy of the instant payment order, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant's assertion and its judgment are asserted as follows.

In other words, the defendant entered into a sales contract No. 153, B, 153, and requested the executor to cancel the contract, but did not accept it. At the time of the loan of the intermediate payment of this case, the plaintiff's employee did not have to be seized when the payment of the balance was not made. The plaintiff can collect the loan from the executor because the executor knews that the contract was made by the executor, and the executor guarantees the defendant's loan obligations.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is improper.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that an employee of the Plaintiff at the time of the instant intermediate payment loan, as alleged by the Defendant, did not exist, and solely on the basis of the remaining arguments by the Defendant, it does not constitute a ground to refuse the Plaintiff’s claim based on the instant loan agreement (the instant loan agreement is a contract separate from the instant intermediate payment contract. Also, even if a joint guarantor exists, a claim for a loan against the principal obligor may be

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and thus the plaintiff won the plaintiff.