1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. According to the Gap evidence No. 2 as to the cause of the claim, on July 1, 2010, the defendant guaranteed that C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "foreign company") whose representative director was the representative director (hereinafter referred to as "the loans or loans of this case") was due and paid KRW 100 million from the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the loans of this case") on December 28, 2010, and the interest rate of 9% per annum (the interest rate may vary depending on the change in the interest rate per the overdraft notified by the National Tax Service, and the settlement at the time of repayment of the principal) and borrowed the loans.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 100 million won of the loan of this case as the guarantor of the non-party company and interest or delay damages as claimed by the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. The gist of the defendant's defense and judgment (1) was to proceed with an urban development project with the support of investment funds from the non-party company. However, the plaintiff's representative director D was bound by the charge of defamation on the morale of investment funds and E (the false statement that the non-party company was kidnapped at the police station) in order to spread E, which is the representative of the non-party company.

Accordingly, D agreed to pay 2 million U.S. dollars to the non-party company, but 1.5 million U.S. dollars was paid among them, and the remaining 500,000 U.S. dollars was not paid. Accordingly, on March 16, 2013, the non-party company expressed its intention to offset the above 500,000 U.S. dollars against the loan claim of this case by making the aforementioned 500,00 U.S. dollars to F as the representative director of the Plaintiff and the director of the Plaintiff as the automatic bond, and on April 16, 2013 thereafter, expressed its intention of offset (Evidence 3).

Therefore, since the debt of the loan of this case has already been extinguished, the guaranteed debt of the defendant was extinguished according to the subsidiary nature.

(2) Fact that there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment, evidence A No. 10-1, 1.