1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 110,200,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 30, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 24, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 300,000,000 to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”); (b) the interest rate was 3.34% per month; and (c) the due date was November 23, 2009; and (d) the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s debt.

B. On November 27, 2009, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C agreed to lower the interest rate of the above loan to 2.5% per month, to extend the due date to 2.7 February 2010, and again, to 2.0% or 2.5% per month on May 27, 2010, and to extend the due date to 2.0% or 2.5% on August 27, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, etc., the plaintiff lent the above loan to C, and the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the above loan to the plaintiff as a joint and several surety, unless there are special circumstances.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff agreed to exempt the Defendant from interest on October 2010, and the fact that the Defendant received KRW 189,800,000 from the above loans from the Defendant from October 2010 is the person.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 110,200,00 among the above loans and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 30, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is clear that it is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order sought by the Plaintiff.

3. The defendant's defense and its judgment

A. The defendant and C have repaid the money above the principal of the above loan for a considerable period of time to the plaintiff, and the remaining interest was renounced by the plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant and C have repaid the whole or part of the loan acknowledged as above to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is with merit.