(a) The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by combining each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 6 as a whole the purport of the entire pleadings:

1) On May 27, 201, the Plaintiff concluded a credit guarantee agreement under which the Defendant bears the guaranteed liability for a loan granted from a new bank for the purpose of a rental loan by setting a guarantee period of KRW 49.5 million and a guarantee period of KRW 4,9.5 million after loan treatment (hereinafter “instant credit guarantee agreement”).

(2) According to the instant credit guarantee agreement, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the amount of subrogation, the amount of damages in accordance with the interest rate determined by the Plaintiff, and other incidental obligations when the Plaintiff would have discharged the guaranteed obligation to a financial institution. (2) The Defendant submitted a credit guarantee agreement based on the instant credit guarantee agreement and received a loan of KRW 50 million from the new bank on the same day.

3) The Defendant did not pay interest on the above loans or did not repay the principal and interest thereof by the due date. On September 18, 2015, the Plaintiff subrogated 49,823,487 won to the new bank based on the credit guarantee agreement of this case. The agreed damages rate for the principal of the above subrogated amount is 8% per annum, and 123,680 won was generated with the fees for attempted payment guarantee. (B) According to the above facts, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 49,947,167 (=49,823,487 won and KRW 123,680 among the above KRW 49,823,487 and KRW 49,823,487 from September 19, 2015 to June 1, 2016, the original copy of the payment order of this case is 8% annual damages from the day after the agreement was served until June 1, 2016.

2. The defendant's argument that the defendant's claim is a plan to repay through the individual rehabilitation procedure, and thus cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

In addition, there is no evidence that the defendant applied for the individual rehabilitation, and the individual rehabilitation.