2. The separate list between the co-defendant A and the defendant in the first instance.

A. (6) Except for the addition of the following, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(7) On July 22, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with A on July 22, 2015 with the credit guarantee principal of KRW 13,500,000, and the credit guarantee term as of July 22, 2020 (hereinafter “instant credit guarantee agreement”).

(8) On July 22, 2015, A submitted a guarantee under the instant credit guarantee agreement and received a loan of KRW 15,000,000 from D.

(9) Lastly, on May 22, 2017, A paid part of the interest on the instant loan and interest, and on June 23, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,782,686 in subrogation of A on September 11, 2017 due to the occurrence of a guarantee accident due to delinquency in principal, and thereafter recovered KRW 1,634.

(10) According to the instant credit guarantee agreement, where the Plaintiff subrogated for the guaranteed obligation, the agreed interest rate for delay shall be 12% per annum from September 1, 2017 to October 12, 2017, which is the date of the instant subrogation, and 10% per annum from the next day to the date of the closing of argument.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s right of revocation may, in principle, be protected by the Plaintiff’s right of revocation prior to the occurrence of an act that could be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that would serve as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future. In a case where a claim has been created by the realization of the probability in the near future, the claim established after the fraudulent act may also become the preserved claim of the right of revocation.