1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 344,039,508 and the amount of KRW 187,640,50 from July 23, 2013 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 550,00,00 to Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) at interest rate of 8% per annum, delay damages, 18% per annum, and May 31, 2012.

B. On April 4, 2011, the Defendant entered into a collateral guarantee agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to provide a joint and several surety within the limit of KRW 689,00,000 with all the obligations currently and future against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant collateral guarantee agreement”).

C. On April 9, 2013, the Plaintiff received a 346,476,359 won from a voluntary auction procedure (Cheongju District Court C) for real estate B, and appropriated a partial repayment of the loan. The remaining loan to the Plaintiff is KRW 344,039,508 (principal KRW 187,640,509) as of July 23, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A 1 to 6, Evidence A 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, a joint and several surety, shall pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 344,039,508 of the remaining principal and interest of the loan to the Plaintiff and KRW 187,640,509 of the loan principal from July 23, 2013 to the date of full payment, the agreed damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of 18% per annum from July 23, 2013 to the date of full payment, and there is a duty to pay KRW 689,00,000 to the Plaintiff within the limit

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant provided a collateral guarantee on the condition that the construction of the factory is completed by dividing the land owned by B into the land owned by the defendant. Since the defendant's construction of the factory was omitted due to the defendant's failure to obtain permission, the contract of collateral guarantee in this case is invalid. Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant's testimony of scams, Eul, Eul's evidence 1, Eul's evidence 2, and witness D's testimony alone is conditional, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the above argument of the defendant on the premise of this case is without merit.