1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,886,854 among the Plaintiff and KRW 7,308,239 among them, shall be the Plaintiff from December 17, 2010, and KRW 13,268,269.

1. Each fact in the separate sheet of the reasons for the recognition shall be recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap 1 to 7 (including each number) without a dispute between the parties.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant, as a joint and several surety, has an obligation to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 20,886,854 (i.e., the remainder of the payment for the agricultural cooperative subrogation amount of KRW 7,308,239,209, KRW 13,268,209, KRW 310,406, and KRW 7,308,239, the remainder of the payment for the agricultural cooperative subrogation amount of KRW 7,308,239, the date the payment for the agricultural cooperative was made by subrogation, from December 17, 2010, the date the agricultural cooperative was subrogated, to KRW 13,268,209, the remainder of the payment for the new bank, from January 6, 2011, to April 12, 2015, each of which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and damages for delay by 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant's assertion is asserted to the purport that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, which is merely a joint and several surety, was unjustifiable, since the individual rehabilitation procedure commenced against B as the principal obligor B.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the fact that individual rehabilitation procedures commenced with respect to the principal debtor B as Seoul Central District Court 2012Da33535, and the draft repayment plan has been authorized in accordance with the creditor list containing the plaintiff's claim in this case. However, even if the principal debtor is granted immunity by implementing the repayment plan, such immunity does not affect the guarantor or security pursuant to Article 625 (3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. The commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures against the principal debtor B does not constitute any legal obstacle in exercising the claim for indemnity against the defendant who is a joint and several surety, and thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.