1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 41,317,00 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 5, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1’s statement and the entire argument as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 41,317,000 won in total to the defendant, who is the principal debtor in the successful bid field, over 23 times from July 18, 2013 to May 23, 2015, but the successful bid is subsequently subject to the above successful bid. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from August 5, 2016 to the date on which the original copy of the payment order in this case is served.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment as to it

A. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the amount of the limit paid by the plaintiff to the defendant is 30,000,000 won as stated in the claim attachment and assignment order against the defendant as the debtor, and that the defendant's most of its repayment was merely 6,00,000 won, and thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

B. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that: (a) the Plaintiff received an order for the seizure and assignment of the claims that the Defendant, the garnishee, and the third obligor into the Republic of Korea on June 7, 2016 with the claimed amount of KRW 30,000,000; and (b) the Defendant remitted the total amount of KRW 28,425,00 to the Plaintiff nine times from May 22, 2014 to February 16, 2015.

However, comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,00,000 to C on November 29, 2012, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of C on the same day. The Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed as a notary public No. 2772 on the said joint and several liability as to the said notarial deed as a notary public’s certificate as to the said notarial deed, and the Plaintiff was issued an order for seizure and assignment of the said claim with the title of execution. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 28,80,000 to the Defendant on April 21, 2014.