D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) loaned each of the loans of KRW 1.5 billion to C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) on December 3, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “existing loan”) and KRW 200 million on May 9, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “instant loan”). The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan obligations of KRW 240,000,000,000.

As Seoul Central District Court 2012 Ma125, the rehabilitation procedure (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”) began with respect to C.

D Under the above rehabilitation procedure, D reported the amount of KRW 701,700,000 of the principal of the instant loan and KRW 200,000,000 of the principal of the instant loan and interest of KRW 104,122,801 prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures for each of the above loans as rehabilitation security rights.

On December 5, 2012, the above court approved C’s rehabilitation plan (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation plan”).

According to the approved rehabilitation plan, C shall pay each of the principal amounting to KRW 942,248,615 (=the principal amounting to KRW 784,250,143 prior to commencement of rehabilitation procedures) and KRW 157,998,472,658 of rehabilitation claims (the interest amounting to KRW 117,49,857 prior to commencement of rehabilitation procedures) (i.e., interest amounting to KRW 104,122,801 prior to commencement of rehabilitation procedures at KRW 117,49,857), which is KRW 942,248,615 of rehabilitation claims, and principal amounting to KRW 88,629,063 of rehabilitation claims (=the interest amounting to KRW 12,542,116 of the interest prior to commencement of rehabilitation procedures at KRW 46,979,943). However, repayment of rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation claims is appropriated in the order

[Ground for recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 as to the grounds for a claim for judgment as to the overall purport of the pleadings, the entire purport of the pleadings is shown in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 as to the grounds for a claim for judgment as to the overall purport of the pleadings. D Co., Ltd. borrowed the loan of this case to Eul on May 9, 201, with the interest of 17% or 19% (17% per annum less than 3 months, not less than 3 months, and 19% per annum) as of May 9, 2012; the Defendant guaranteed the loan of this case to the plaintiff on June 17, 2015; and D provided the loan of this case to the plaintiff on May 9, 2015.