1. The defendant shall pay KRW 90,413,601 to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 12, 2012, Korea Exchange Bank Co., Ltd. loans KRW 550 million to the market interest rate in proportion to the market interest rate. Around September 2012, 2012, Korea Exchange Bank guaranteed the payment guarantee for B’s obligation to pay for the goods (interest rate of 4.09% per annum) with the limit of KRW 250 million (interest rate of 4.09% per annum), and on September 13, 2012, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation and the obligation to pay for substitute payments arising from the payment guarantee.

B. Since then, Company B lost the benefit of time, and the Korea Exchange Bank on behalf of the company B in accordance with the above payment guarantee.

C. On November 21, 2013, Korea Exchange Bank: (a) transferred each of the above claims to SB Savings Bank; (b) around that time notified the fact of transferring the said claims to B, a primary debtor, and (c) on March 15, 2016, SB Savings Bank notified the Plaintiff of the fact of transferring the said claims; and (b) around that time notified the fact of transferring the said claims to B, a primary debtor.

Each of the above obligations remains 90,413,601 won as of August 4, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' arguments and the judgment on them

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay 90,413,601 won to the plaintiff who acquired each of the above claims in succession.

B. As to the Defendant’s defense, the Defendant asserted to the effect that each of the above claims was repaid through a compulsory auction procedure for real estate C in Daegu District Court. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge only the statement of evidence No. 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 6 and 7, each of the above claims sought by the Plaintiff is partly repaid in the Daegu District Court C and D (Dual) auction procedure.