1. Defendant A’s interest rate of KRW 178,457,439 and KRW 26,97,602 among the Plaintiff shall be from February 5, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts constituting the cause of claim;

A. On September 21, 2009, the Solomon Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Bank”) lent 11% interest per annum (25% per annum) to Defendant A on September 21, 201, and 870,000 won due date for repayment, which was set as September 21, 201. The above Defendant’s failure to fully repay its principal and interest as of February 4, 2015, the outstanding principal and interest 26,97,602 won, interest and overdue interest 151,38,037 won, and the provisional payment 71,800 won remain.

B. Defendant A guaranteed Defendant A’s obligation to return the principal and interest of the loan within the limit of KRW 1,131,00,000.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap 1 through 4, 7]

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. Defendant B asserts to the effect that the instant lease is related to the construction of a house on the land of Gwangju City, and that Defendant A only lent his name to Defendant A, but is not a real owner of the said house, and thus Defendant B’s collateral guarantee is null and void as it is based on an invalid title trust agreement, and is not a true declaration of intention or intention.

However, even on the premise of all the above circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the contract between the bankrupt and the bankrupt is null and void as a matter of course or not a serious intention, and it is not sufficient to accept the above assertion by the defendant B solely based on the result of the examination against the defendant A, even though the defendant B knew or could have known that the intention of the defendant B was not a true intention.

B. Defendant B asserted to the effect that since Defendant A’s principal obligation was reduced to KRW 182,00,000 after July 1, 201, Defendant B’s guarantee limit should also be reduced to KRW 5,460,000, which is 30%, but the said assertion is rejected on the ground that there is no ground to view that part of the obligation is a ground to reduce the limit of the guarantee limit.

C. The Defendants, at the time when the bankrupt was declared, commenced a voluntary auction procedure for the security and realized the security, the above 1-A.