1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) for KRW 92,601,805 and its 87,818,346, within the limit of KRW 132,00,00;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 17, 2015, the Plaintiff loaned to B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) KRW 10 million (hereinafter “one loan”), KRW 50 million on September 18, 2015 (hereinafter “two loans”); and KRW 130 million on October 14, 2015 (hereinafter “three loans”) at the rate of 25% per annum for each 60-month period.

B. The Defendant, as the representative director of B, jointly and severally guaranteed the loan obligations within the limit of KRW 132 million, up to KRW 100 million, up to KRW 60 million, up to KRW 20 million, and KRW 156 million.

The defendant's joint and several guarantee agreement for the debt of 1 to 3 loans is the "each guarantee agreement of this case".

(c) C. B was in arrears with the repayment of principal and interest, and lost the benefit due to each of the above loans on May 2, 2017. The balance of principal and interest as of May 22, 2017, as of May 22, 2017, is KRW 87,818,346, interest and overdue interest; KRW 4,783,459, interest and overdue interest; KRW 2,917,426, interest and overdue interest; KRW 2,174,294, interest and overdue interest; and KRW 3,5,407,791. [In the event there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence No. 1 through No. 7, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 92,601,805 won with the principal of KRW 87,818,346 within the limit of KRW 132,00,000,000 with the interest of KRW 92,601,818,346, and with the interest of KRW 60,000,000 with the interest of KRW 42,91,720, and the principal of KRW 39,917,426 within the limit of KRW 15,60,00,000 with the interest of KRW 110,536,317 and the interest of KRW 105,128,526, whichever is the date following each base date, for the interest of KRW 25% per annum from May 23, 2017 to the date of full payment.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s invalidation due to the violation of the method of guarantee (1) is the intent of guarantee pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Protection of Suretys (hereinafter “Surety Protection Act”).