1. The Defendants: KRW 30,688,889, respectively, and KRW 5% per annum from September 22, 2018 to July 15, 2020, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around March 30, 2018, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) concluded a liquor supply contract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) and lent KRW 200 million to E.

The plaintiff, the defendants, the F, G, and H have jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of E with respect to D.

B. E repaid 30 million won out of the above loans to D on September 19, 2018.

The Plaintiff, as a joint and several surety, subrogated the amount of KRW 40 million on September 18, 2018, and KRW 150 million on September 21, 2018, as a joint and several surety, and the loan claims of KRW 40 million on D were all extinguished.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff paid KRW 190 million out of the loan principal and interest obligation of KRW 220 million, and that the Plaintiff paid the total amount of KRW 220 million on behalf of the Plaintiff, but the above assertion is not acceptable.

Of the above amount repaid, 153,444,445 won (=190,00,000 - KRW 36,666,666,66 (220,00 x less than KRW 1/6, and less than KRW 1/6) in excess of its own share at the time of performance can be claimed against other joint and several sureties (hereinafter the same shall apply).

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 30,688,889 won (i.e., KRW 153,44,445 x 1/5 x 1/5) as well as damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 22, 2018, which is the day following the date of the Plaintiff’s final payment by subrogation until July 15, 2020, which is the date of the Plaintiff’s final payment by the Defendants.

B. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff is not a mere joint and several surety, and received a large amount of funds from E as the principal obligor E. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement is unfair because they did not receive an equity share as agreed at the time of the joint and several surety agreement.