1. As to KRW 54,934,593 and KRW 11,211,161 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from January 17, 2014 to August 31, 2015.

1. The facts in the separate sheet of the judgment on the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including serial numbers), and the overall purport of pleadings. Thus, the defendant, barring any special circumstance, has an agreement to pay to the plaintiff 54,934,593 won (the balance of subrogated payment + KRW 11,211,161 + KRW 42,617,712 + additional guarantee fee + KRW 977,620 + KRW 128,100 + additional guarantee fee + KRW 11,211,161, and 161, the balance of subrogated payment, with the agreement to pay to the defendant 12% per annum from January 17, 2014 to August 31, 2015, which is the day following the date of subrogation until 15, 2017.

2. The defendant's defense was sold in Bable apartment from the non-party Korean land trust, received an intermediate payment from the foreign exchange bank, and entered into a housing finance credit guarantee agreement with the plaintiff on the defendant's intermediate payment obligation against the foreign exchange bank. The plaintiff did not clearly explain to the defendant that the defendant entered into a guarantee agreement on the part payment obligation against the defendant's foreign exchange bank. The plaintiff did not provide the pertinent information or data and did not explain the contents thereof. The above housing finance credit guarantee agreement in violation of the Regulation of Terms and Conditions Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Banking Act is invalid as an unfair act.

According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1 and 2, the defendant concluded a housing finance credit guarantee agreement and a loan agreement with a foreign exchange bank entrusted by the plaintiff, and received copies of the agreement, etc.