1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 54,685,841 as well as KRW 10,978,381 from December 31, 2013 to August 31, 2015.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings (the defendant does not clearly dispute the changed cause) in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional evidence number), the facts of the cause of claim and the changed cause of claim in the annexed Form No. 1 (However, each "creditor" shall be deemed each "Plaintiff," and each "debtor" shall be deemed each "Defendant," respectively) can be acknowledged.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of remaining claims KRW 54,685,841 and the principal amount of KRW 10,978,381 among them, 12% per annum, which is the agreed rate, from December 31, 2013 to August 31, 2015, the date following the date of subrogation, and 8% per annum, which is the agreed rate, from the next day to December 14, 2016, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case, and damages for delay calculated by 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date of completion of the claim in this case.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. A summary of the assertion 1) The credit guarantee agreement asserted by the Plaintiff was concluded at the same time as a collective loan agreement, and the Plaintiff’s side did not comply with the duty to clearly explain and explain the credit guarantee at the time of the collective loan agreement (hereinafter “section 1”).

(2) The Plaintiff is not obligated to recover the amount of subrogation from the Defendant’s individual, but shall recover the amount of subrogation by claiming against the executor and the contractor in accordance with the intermediate payment service agreement between the executor and the lending financial institution, or by selling the apartment sold by the Defendant through the public auction for the apartment that the Defendant purchased.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second chapter”). The contract for sale in lots concluded between the Korea Land Trust and the Defendant was cancelled, which led to the Plaintiff’s repayment of the payment by subrogation from the Korea Land Trust. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim.