National Agricultural Cooperative Federation

Nong Bank Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Won-won, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant (Attorney Kang Jae-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

August 27, 2013

Changwon District Court Decision 2009Da41529 Decided October 18, 2011

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff's successor 206,220,425 won and the interest rate of 6% per annum from December 31, 201 to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's successor's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 4/5 of the total litigation costs is assessed against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. The portion ordering a payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows. The defendant shall pay to the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,320,279,483 as well as KRW 206,220,425 as to KRW 206,220,00 from November 26, 201, and KRW 90,000 from December 30, 201 to May 9, 2013, respectively, 15.96% per annum from the date of delivery of a duplicate of the application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of May 9, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (the plaintiff's successor applied for intervention in succession at the court of first instance, and reduced the purport of the claim as above, and the plaintiff withdrawn from the lawsuit of this case with the defendant's consent).

1. Basic facts

A. On August 19, 2002, Dong-hee Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dong-hee Development”) entered into an agreement with the Korea Land Corporation for the return of the remaining amount calculated by deducting the deposit amount of KRW 362,412,00 from the deposit amount of KRW 362,412,00,000 from the deposit amount of KRW 3,62,412,00 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and the sales contract of this case is cancelled due to the causes attributable to Dong-hee Development, the Korea Land Corporation agreed to return the remaining amount calculated by adding the statutory interest to the deposit amount of KRW 362,412,00,00 and the expenses incurred in restoring ownership.

B. On March 29, 2004, the Plaintiff and Donghee Development entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on March 29, 2004 as collateral for the Plaintiff to obtain a loan from the Plaintiff, which is equivalent to KRW 1.177 billion in the purchase price to be returned from the Korea Land Corporation and KRW 1.573 billion in the total amount of KRW 4.3 million in the purchase price (hereinafter the above claim amounting to KRW 1.177 billion in the total amount of KRW 1.3 billion in the purchase price, and the above claim amounting to KRW 4.3 million in the above claim amount to KRW 4.3 million in the total amount, and the contract was concluded to transfer each of the above claims to the Plaintiff.

C. Under the above transfer contract, the Plaintiff and Dong-hee prepared two notifications of and written consent to the assignment of claims and sent them to the North Korean branch offices prior to the Korea Land Corporation by facsimile of the Plaintiff. The North Korean Land Corporation branch offices prior to the Korea Land Corporation prepared a written consent with the purport of accepting the assignment of claims and then sent it to the Plaintiff by mail. One written consent (hereinafter “written consent of March 29, 2004”) states the subject and amount of credit as “90 million won for general funds” and “three years” but the date of consent with the indication of the transferred amount and transferred claims as “310,000 won for 290,000 won for 20,000 won for 29,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 4,000 won for 20,000 won for 20.”

D. Accordingly, on March 29, 2004, Donghee Development was loaned from the Plaintiff at a rate of 6.96% per annum, 15.96% per annum, 15.96% per annum, 2007 as of March 29, 2007 (hereinafter “first loan”), 300 million won per annum as of September 1, 2004, 7.02% per annum, 16.02% per annum, and 16.02% per annum as of March 29, 2007, and 207 as of March 29, 2007 (hereinafter “second loan”).

E. After that, at the time of expiration of the above credit period, Donghee Development and the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to extend the above credit period. On March 29, 2007, Donghee Development and the Plaintiff extended the expiration date of the above credit period on September 29, 2007. On the same day, the Defendant, the representative director of Donghee Development, as to each of the above loans, concluded a specific credit guarantee contract (hereinafter referred to as "the first credit guarantee" and the second credit guarantee as to the second loan, setting the maximum guarantee amount as KRW 1 billion for the first loan, and KRW 372 million for the second loan, as for the second loan, each specific credit guarantee contract (hereinafter referred to as "the second credit guarantee contract of this case"), and the second credit guarantee contract of this case was not repaid even until the expiration date of the extended credit period.

F. Meanwhile, on April 24, 2007, the Korea Land Corporation cancelled the instant sales contract on the grounds of delay in the payment of part payments of the same development, and on April 25, 2007, as the Changwon District Court No. 1663 of 207, it prepared a notice of the assignment of claims and a written consent while paying part payments with loans from the Plaintiff, but the original notice of the assignment of claims takes effect after the fixed date, but it is suspected that the original notice of the assignment of claims takes effect due to the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with it, and that the tax claims of the Republic of Korea (Seoul), 197, 384, 190, 447, 621, 740 won, were sent to 30 won on August 16, 2005 and 207, 30 won on September 21, 2006, 208, 3031, 205, 3015, 207.

G. Afterwards, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation that the claim for payment of KRW 1.573 million out of the instant deposit is against the Plaintiff (the amount of each of the instant secured claims) with the Changwon District Court Decision 2007Gahap4134, the Changwon District Court Decision 2007Da4134, but the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. The appellate court rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff has the right to payment of KRW 310 million out of the instant deposit on the ground that the claim for payment of KRW 200 million out of each of the instant secured claims has consented to the transfer of claims with a fixed date (the Busan High Court Decision 201Na5295, Oct. 25, 201), which was the Busan High Court Decision 2008Na18918, May 27, 2009, which was the Busan High Court Decision 2008Na18964, Oct. 27, 2011).

H. Accordingly, on November 25, 201, the Plaintiff received KRW 330,748,767 out of the instant deposit as a transferee of the second-mortgaged claim. ② On December 30, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for a seizure and collection order of KRW 458,939,69 in the dividend procedure of the same court by requesting for a seizure and collection order of the instant claim based on the original copy of the judgment with executory power in the judgment of the first instance court ordering the performance of each of the instant loan obligations in relation to Donghee Development.

I. Meanwhile, as the Plaintiff’s credit business-related sector was divided under Article 134-4 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor succeeded to the rights and obligations, which are the subject of the instant lawsuit, and applied for intervention on August 22, 2012 during the trial. On October 9, 2012, the Plaintiff withdrawn from the instant lawsuit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 13-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, Eul evidence No. 9-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the principal and interest of loan and damages for delay to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor within the limit of the amount of guarantee limit of each of the above fundamental rights as a collateral pursuant to each of the above fundamental rights guarantee contracts of this case.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The invalidity of each of the instant renewal guarantee contracts due to non-conforming decision

At the time of the preparation of the letter of collateral guarantee of this case, the Defendant asserted that the contract of this case was null and void because the non-party 2, an employee of the Plaintiff, was a document to extend the credit period for the loan obligation of East-hee Development, and signed at the place indicated by Non-party 2 with the belief of the end, and did not intend to conclude each contract of collateral guarantee of this case. The Plaintiff did not demand the Defendant to provide a collateral guarantee for each of the loan obligations of this case. Thus, each of the contract of collateral guarantee of this case is invalid because there was no agreement between the parties to

As long as the contents of the contract are acknowledged to be genuine, the court shall recognize the existence and contents of the expression of intent as stated in the above statement unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence to deny the contents of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67602, 67619, Jul. 9, 2009). According to each of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of evidence Nos. 4 and 9-2, each of the contract of this case signed by the defendant is the title of "finite", and the joint and several liability guarantee contract of this case is an important legal act that may cause property loss, so it is necessary for the back of the contract to clearly read the contents of the contract of the guarantee, and it is not necessary for the defendant to have signed the contract of this case to have signed the contract of this case, and it is not necessary for the defendant to have signed the contract of this case to have signed the contract of this case and to have signed the contract of this case with the term of "finite's signature and development".

B. Revocation of each of the instant probation guarantee contracts due to deception or mistake

The defendant, after the plaintiff was transferred by Dong-hee Development as a security for a loan obligation, failed to meet the requirements for setting up against the transfer of claims and lost its collateral capacity. In order to secure the security for the above loan obligation, the defendant makes false statement that the defendant is a document to postpone the credit period, and made the defendant believe that the defendant, who is erroneous, sign each contract of this case on the guarantee contract of this case. Thus, the defendant's defense that the contract of this case was cancelled on the ground that the delivery of a copy of the reply of this case by deception

In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff received the transfer of each of the secured claims in this case as security for the loan obligation from the East-hee Development, and according to the evidence Nos. 3, No. 13-1, No. 13-2, No. 5, No. 10, and Non-Party 2’s testimony from the witness of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff was delegated from the East-hee Development to the Korea Land Corporation and notified of the transfer of claims and received a written consent, but the Plaintiff did not receive a fixed date at the time of the above transfer or acceptance, and the Plaintiff did not receive a fixed date at the time of the above transfer or acceptance. The Plaintiff received a fixed date for the transfer of each of the secured claims in this case only after around March 23, 2007, which was about three years after the date of the above transfer or acceptance, and the fact that the ordinary creditor in the East-hee Development was unable to oppose the above general creditor by executing the seizure, provisional seizure, etc. in sequence with regard to

However, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff made a false statement as alleged by the Defendant solely based on the statement No. 20-2 of the evidence No. 20, part of Non-Party 3’s testimony, and the result of the Defendant’s personal examination at the party, and there is no other evidence to

Rather, the fact that the defendant written his name and signed in the column of joint and several sureties in the application form for extension of the term of validity of each contract of this case, which is a disposal document, is recognized as above. In full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as to the testimony of the non-party 6, 7, and 8 (including each number) and the witness non-party 4 and 3 of the court of first instance as the witness of the court of first instance, the defendant was well aware of the existence of each of the above disposal documents of this case, the financial status of the Donghee Development, and the non-party 4 and the defendant's husband as well as the defendant at the time of the preparation of each disposal document of this case, and all of them were called from the non-party 2, who is the plaintiff's employee, to the effect that the defendant's personal seal was affixed to each of the above documents, and it is reasonable to view that the above extension of the contract of this case had been made due to the financial difficulties in entering into each of the resale guarantee contracts of this case.

(c) Exemption from liability for loss of security;

1) Parties’ assertion

A) Defendant’s assertion

Even if each of the instant collateral guarantee contracts is valid, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is exempted from its liability for repayment to the extent that it could not be repaid due to the loss or decrease of each of the instant collateral claims pursuant to Article 485 of the Civil Act, as long as the Plaintiff’s obligation for the loan from the same development as the principal obligor was transferred as a security for the loan obligation, and the secured value was lost by obtaining a fixed date after the lapse of three years thereafter.

B) The plaintiff's assertion

As to this, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a duty to receive notification or consent by a certificate with a fixed date with respect to the assignment of claims to the assignee. Thus, even if the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant collateral claims and did not obtain the consent by a certificate with a fixed date, the exemption pursuant to Article 485 of the Civil Act is not recognized, and ② even if not, the Defendant, who entered into each of the instant collateral guarantee contracts, lost the security due to other seizure, etc. while failing to meet the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claims, and thus, the Defendant cannot assert the exemption pursuant to Article 485 of the Civil Act.

2) Determination

A) Whether the transfer of each of the instant secured claims constitutes a security under Article 485 of the Civil Act

Article 485 of the Civil Act provides that, in cases where a person has a legitimate interest in subrogation, if the security has been forfeited or diminished by intention or negligence of the obligee, the subrogated person shall be exempted from liability to the extent that it cannot be repaid due to such loss or reduction. The security under the above provision is not included in general security provided for repayment to a general obligee’s property, and in cases where there is a special agreement between the obligee and the obligor to secure the performance of the obligation, not only a typical physical and human security but also a typical security, the right to be held by the obligee by such special agreement is included (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da1013 delivered on January 21, 200). In the case of the assignment of obligation as in this case, if the obligor consents from a document with a fixed date, it may be set up against a third party other than the obligor (Article 450(2) of the Civil Act). Moreover, it is sufficient to secure the performance of each obligation of this case.

The Plaintiff entered into a bond security agreement with respect to the claim for the refund of the purchase price for the Korea Land Corporation in the Dong-hee Development as a security for the claim for loans to the Dong-hee Development, and the Defendant took over each of the secured claims in this case. The Defendant guaranteed the Plaintiff’s loan obligations to the Dong-hee Development, and the Plaintiff could exercise the right to exercise the purchase price against the Korea Land Corporation in the event that the Plaintiff performed his collateral obligations against the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff had a duty to retain the opposing power as to each of the secured claims in this case, which is a security for the instant loan claims. If the Plaintiff neglected to have the opposing power as to each of the secured claims in this case and thus the said security is extinguished or reduced, the Defendant may claim the exemption within the extent that it could not be repaid (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da42677, Dec. 24, 2001

B) As to the first secured claim

(1) Whether the requirements for setting up against the transfer of the first secured claim are satisfied

Since a claim may be conceptually and identical rights between the same parties, it is specified by the creditor, debtor, type of claim, cause, date and time of occurrence, details of payment, amount of claim, and due date, etc. However, even if there are some differences in the actual claim and the date and purpose of occurrence, and the due date of payment, etc., if it is possible to recognize the claim separately from other claims in light of social norms, it can be said that the claim is specific, so that the interests of the parties can be comprehensively balanced and determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da21624, Jul. 25, 1997).

In full view of the purport of evidence No. 13-2 and evidence No. 13-2 and the whole arguments as to the land of this case, Donghee Development entered into a contract for the sale of the land of this case with the Korea Land Corporation ( Address No. 2 omitted) in addition to the sale contract of this case on the land of this case, it was not only the land of this case but also the intermediate payment of the sale contract on the land of this case ( Address No. 2 omitted) with the plaintiff and paid it by borrowing from the plaintiff. Thus, Dong hee Development and the Korea Land Corporation had two claims for the return of the sale price due to the cancellation of the sale contract. The written consent of the Korea Land Corporation (Evidence No. 13-2 of the evidence No. 13-2) entered the transfer amount and the bond column to be transferred in the blank column, and it cannot be seen that the sale price of this case's land of this case and the claim No. 2 of this case's transfer cannot be seen as having been cancelled due to the agreement of March 29, 2004.

Therefore, the consent of the Korea Land Corporation on March 29, 2004 is that the transfer of the claim subject to the consent and the transfer of the claim are not specified, and thus the consent does not meet the requirements for the consent. The plaintiff cannot set up against the third party with the above consent.

(2) Whether Article 485 of the Civil Act is applied

(A) The Plaintiff asserted that Article 485 of the Civil Act does not apply to the instant case, since the Defendant had lost its secured value of the first secured claim and the Defendant concluded each of the instant collateral guarantee agreements by concealing the fact that the Plaintiff lost its secured value of the first secured claim. This asserts that the exemption from liability due to the loss of security under Article 485 of the Civil Act should also be applied to the instant case, since the Plaintiff infringed on the expectation of subrogation of the security right of the guarantor.

(B) The typical example of the loss or reduction of security as referred to in Article 485 of the Civil Act refers to an act of a creditor to exempt a guarantor’s obligation, which is a personal security, to waiver or order a real security right, or to change a security right which is a physical security, to a disadvantage, or to damage or return a security (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da13669 delivered on December 12, 200). In this case, the security includes not only the already established security but also a conditional security established. The loss or reduction of a security can be done not only by an act of act but also by an omission of neglecting the loss or reduction as well as by taking the procedure of the registration of the creation of a security right or provisional registration. Therefore, even if a security right is lost due to a failure to take the procedure of the registration of the establishment of a security right or the transfer of a security right, or even if the transfer

(C) The following facts are recognized in full view of the evidence Nos. 13, 17, and No. 19-2 of the evidence No. 19-2 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

① The Plaintiff immediately deposited the first loan into the Korea Land Corporation, and the Plaintiff led to the execution of the instant loan, securing of security therefor, etc. by sending the notice of assignment with the signature and seal of the said development to the Korea Land Corporation and directly sending it to the Korea Land Corporation.

② According to the Plaintiff’s credit operating manual, the Plaintiff’s credit management manual provides that “after receiving a contract on the transfer of credit from a person providing security, two copies of the notification and consent of the transfer of credit jointly signed by the business place and the person providing security shall be sent to the payer and obtain a fixed date

(3) Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not obtain the consent with a fixed date regarding the first-mortgaged claim in violation of the above guidelines for business process.

④ The Plaintiff, even though he was aware that the value of the claim as security was lost due to the failure to satisfy the requirements for setting up against the first secured claim, did not notify the Defendant of such fact at the time of the said collateral security.

⑤ Although the representative director of the East-hee Development was the Defendant, the Defendant was holding 6,000 only the total amount of 30,000 shares issued in the East-hee Development around 2004 when each of the instant collateral was transferred or each of the instant loans was executed.

(D) In light of the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s duty to set up against the Plaintiff in light of the Plaintiff’s business guidelines and the relationship with the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff had the duty to set up against the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff did not have the opposing power of the first collateral claims by negligence in violation of the standards for credit business management. ② The Plaintiff’s negligence appears to be very significant in that the Plaintiff is liable for the Plaintiff’s duty of care much higher than the general public in performing credit-related business as a financial institution. ③ In the instant case where the Korea Land Corporation, which is a public corporation, was transferred for security, as well as the realization procedure, there is no need for any specific realization procedure, and the value of the collateral is much higher than the case where the Plaintiff was provided as a collateral. ④ The Defendant appears to have already lost the obligee’s duty to set up the first collateral contract under the premise that the obligee had already lost its trust and trust and trust as well as the duty to protect the obligee’s guaranteed interest at the time of the first collateral.

(3) The Defendant’s exemption scope

In the event a security is lost or diminished by an obligee’s intentional act or negligence, whether a statutory subrogation is exempted from liability under Article 485 of the Civil Act, and the scope of exemption should be determined at the standard point of time when the security is lost or diminished (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da36283, Oct. 9, 2001; 2001Da42677, Dec. 24, 2001, etc.).

Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the first collateral claim is transferred for the security of the first loan and re-established the first collateral guarantee contract. According to the evidence evidence No. 11, around August 31, 2005, each seizure decision of which exceeds the amount of the first collateral claim, amounting to 2,030,414,400 won, and local tax claim amounting to 1,197,384,190 won was served on the Korea Land Corporation, which is the garnishee (the seizure order of the national tax claim of August 16, 2005 as the claim amounting to 1,197,384,190 won, local tax claim of August 31, 2005 as the claim amounting to 83,030,030,210 won, and each of the above claims is a priority claim against the general bond of KRW 100,000,000,000,000 won.

4) In the case of 2nd security claims:

The purpose of the Civil Act is to prevent infringement of a third party’s rights by making the transferor, transferee, and debtor in collusion with each other from the date of notification or acceptance, and the “date of confirmation” refers to the date recognized as a fixed date by law, such as Article 3 of the Addenda to the Civil Act. Article 3(4) of the Addenda to the Civil Act provides that “The date on which a document is entered in a notarial deed or at a public office, which proves and enters certain matters in a notarial deed, shall be the fixed date.”

On March 29, 2004, when the Plaintiff extended an advance payment for the land of this case on the same day for securing the loan claims, the Plaintiff acquired each of the security claims of this case on the same day, and the former North Korean Land Corporation's branch office, the debtor of each of the security claims of this case, prepared the written consent on September 1, 2004 and sent it by mail on September 2, 2004 and delivered it to the Plaintiff on September 2, 2004, which is the next day. However, in light of the above legal principles as seen earlier, the above written consent on September 2, 2004, which is the date of the consent of the above written consent, is written as "the date of August 200," and the specific date is written as "the date of the approval of the above written consent is written as "the date of August 3, 200," which is written as "the date of the above written consent of the public office under Article 4 of the Addenda of the Korean Land Corporation Act, which is written as the above."

Furthermore, in principle, it is not possible for the parties to the above written consent to arbitrarily retroactive the date of acceptance at least prior to the corresponding month. Thus, the above written consent alone can achieve a considerable part of the purport of preventing the retroactive passage of the date of acceptance due to the collusion of debtors, etc., and if the specific date can be specified by the document preparation ledger of the Korea Land Corporation, which is the subject that gave the above date, it can be treated equally with the ordinary fixed date. Even if the document preparation ledger does not exist and it is impossible to specify the specific date because the document preparation ledger does not exist, the fixed date may be deemed to have been secured at the end of the corresponding month at the disadvantage of the party who invoked it, and the legal relation is not likely to be uncertain due to it, it is reasonable to view that the above written consent has the validity of the fixed date.

Ultimately, it is reasonable to see that the date of acceptance stated in the above written consent as “the date of August 2004” is a valid fixed date under Article 3(4) of the Addenda of the Civil Act. If so, the above written consent constitutes a “certificate with the fixed date” under Article 450(2) of the Civil Act.

Therefore, inasmuch as a third party, who is in a position incompatible with the Plaintiff as a transferee of nominative claim, has already met all the requirements for setting up against the Plaintiff, “Notice or Consent by the Fixed Date Certificate” under Article 450(2) of the Civil Act before acquiring such status, the Plaintiff may set up a defense against the third party for KRW 310 million, and thus, the loss of collateral for the second secured claim is not recognized. The Defendant’s defense based on the different premise is without merit.

D. The scope of the second-class guarantee obligation to be borne by the defendant

1) On November 25, 2011, the Plaintiff received KRW 330,748,767 out of the instant deposit as the assignee of the second-mortgaged claim. On November 25, 2011, the amount of the second-mortgaged claim as of November 25, 201 is KRW 310,748,767, and the total of KRW 536,969,192 is KRW 226,969,192, and the interest and delay damages are 226,969,192, and there is no dispute between the parties. As such, the above KRW 330,748,767 was preferentially appropriated for the interest and delay damages, and interest and delay damages were not remaining (i.e., KRW 330,79,575 won (= KRW 330,748,767,2669,2969,292).

2) In addition, the fact that the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 458,939,690 in the dividend procedure of the same court (No. 1669) based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of the first instance court that ordered the repayment of each of the loans of this case with respect to the development of No. 30, Dec. 30, 2011 is as follows: (a) based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of the first instance court that ordered the Plaintiff to pay the loans of this case; (b) based on the original copy of the judgment of this case, Changwon District Court No. 2011T 168,939,695; and (c) based on the same court’s claim attachment and collection order; and (d) as mentioned above, the amount of loans of this case as of December 30, 2011 is 90,572,98,748, and interest rate of KRW 1,572,98,690 is no dispute between the parties.

A) 3,167,884 won for delay from November 26, 201 to December 30, 2011 (i.e., 206, 220,425 won x 16.02% x 35 days/365 days, or less than won)

B) The remaining dividends of KRW 455,771,806 (=458,939,690 - 3,167,884) must be appropriated for damages for delay up to December 30, 2011 for KRW 672,998,748.

3) Ultimately, it is clear that damages for delay in the second loan obligation incurred until December 30, 201 should be paid in full at KRW 458,939,690. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor the amount calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from December 31, 2011 to the date of full payment of damages for delay in the second loan obligation as to the principal amount of the second loan and the second loan obligation as to the second loan obligation. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor the amount calculated at the rate of 206,220,425 per annum from the day following the date of calculation of damages for delay in the second loan obligation to the day of full payment [the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor claimed the payment of damages for delay in accordance with the agreed rate of damages for delay in the principal obligation separate from the guarantee limit amount, and in the absence of any special agreement on the interest rate on delay in the guaranteed obligation, it shall be in accordance with the Commercial Act or the Civil Act.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified within the above scope of recognition.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant by the succeeding intervenor is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no ground. Accordingly, the decision of the court of first instance shall be modified according to the participation of the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Han-ra (Presiding Judge)