1. The defendant shall pay 40,200,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from May 9, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. A. On July 13, 2015, the Plaintiff made a guarantee of KRW 40,200,000,000, out of the debts owed to the Defendant by the non-party corporation (hereinafter referred to as “non-party corporation”) around July 13, 2015, and agreed to pay it by October 30, 2015, there is no dispute between the parties.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant, as a guarantor, is obligated to pay the above guaranteed debt amounting to KRW 40,22 million to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant asserts that the non-party company, the primary debtor, should first be held responsible, and that the highest and search defense should be raised.

(b) If the obligee claims the surety to discharge the obligation, the surety may set up a defense against the obligor that the obligor has the ability to discharge the obligation, and that it should be easy to execute the obligation, and that the property should be executed first;

(Article 437 of the Civil Act). (C)

In light of the above legal principles, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above facts solely on the basis of the fact-finding report to the Cheongju-si Office of this Court, the Mechanical Construction Mutual Aid Association, and the Court Administration, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, the defendant's defense cannot be accepted.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from May 9, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is obviously 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., which is the day following the day on which the payment order in this case was served to the Defendant, as the day of the above payment agreement with the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its implementation is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.