1. The defendant shall pay 88,400,000 won to the plaintiff and 4.46% per annum from March 1, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) On December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff is a stock company B (the payment order for the Plaintiff was finalized; hereinafter “foreign company”).

() From December 9, 2016 to December 10, 2017, an agreement was concluded to supply sun-dried salt to the Plaintiff. The Defendant, as the representative director of the non-party company, guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the price for the goods under the said agreement on the same day. 2) The Plaintiff supplied the non-party company with sun-dried salt amounting to KRW 88,400,000 on December 9, 2016 and the following day, and the non-party company agreed to pay the price for the goods by February 29, 2017 between the Plaintiff and the non-party company on February 6, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, as a surety, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 88,400,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 4.46% per annum from March 1, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the due date.

2. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim, on July 10, 2017, since the Defendant resigned from the office of representative director of the non-party company on July 10, 2017, and Non-party Company C and D, the representative director of the non-party company and the actual operator, are responsible for the Nonparty

However, the above goods payment obligation was incurred at the time when the defendant was in office as representative director of the non-party company, and the defendant resigned from the office of representative director.

The guarantee contract may be terminated on the ground of such change in circumstances.

the liability is not limited or restricted.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da46082 delivered on January 15, 199). In addition, although C or D assumed the Defendant’s obligation against the Plaintiff and expressed its intent to exempt the Plaintiff from the Defendant’s obligation, C or D expressed its intent to accept the said obligation against the Defendant.