1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Within the limit of KRW 60,000,000 and this shall be from January 19, 2017.

According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including additional numbers) and the whole arguments, the plaintiff may recognize that the plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed obligation amounting to KRW 60 million with the maximum guaranteed obligation amounting to KRW 40 million as KRW 60,000,000,000 per annum on March 15, 201, the agreement rate of KRW 24% per annum, and the overdue interest rate of KRW 36% per annum.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 40 million won within the limit of 60 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 19, 2017 to the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment as requested by the plaintiff, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 45 million won per annum from January 19, 2017 to the day of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff, within the limit of 67.5 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

In regard to this, the defendant appointed the defendant who was an employee of the plaintiff as an internal director while establishing the related company C, and forced the defendant to become a formal joint and several surety in the course of performing the loan to the corporation C, which suffered financial difficulties due to business depression, and thus, the defendant argued that the joint and several surety agreement with the plaintiff is invalid. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.