1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 124,929,350 and KRW 122,238,638, among themselves, from November 24, 2016 to August 24, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 24, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with Defendant A, and Defendant A guaranteed the repayment obligation of the principal and interest borrowed from the Small and Medium Business Corporation. Defendant A agreed to reimburse the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff performed the credit guarantee obligation, and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation of Defendant A.

B. On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff performed the guaranteed obligation on November 24, 2016 when a guarantee accident under the above credit guarantee agreement occurred. The amount that the Plaintiff has not paid and collected pursuant to the above credit guarantee agreement is KRW 122,238,638, 44,620, 1,774,180, 58,033, 813, 813,879, and 124,929,350 in total.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 124,929,350 won and 122,238,638 won, which the Plaintiff repaid the principal and interest of the loan pursuant to the above credit guarantee agreement, to the Plaintiff from November 24, 2016 to August 4, 2017, the agreed rate of 10% per annum, and damages for delay calculated by 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The Defendants asserted to the effect that since the auction procedure is in progress with respect to the Defendants’ property, they may repay the Plaintiff’s claim amount to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff received full repayment of the claim amount.

The plaintiff's claim cannot be deemed unfair on the sole basis of the fact that there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the plaintiff was distributed or received in the auction procedure, and that the auction procedure is in progress. Therefore, the defendants' claim is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.