1. The Defendant’s KRW 425,257,095 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual 10% from September 28, 2017 to January 7, 2018, and the following.

1. The facts stated in the separate sheet of the judgment on the cause of the claim are either not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4 and all pleadings.

According to the above facts, the defendant, who is a joint and several surety of the main debtor B (hereinafter "B"), is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 425,257,095 of the plaintiff's subrogated payment and the principal of KRW 425,00,000 of these costs, which is the date of the plaintiff's subrogated payment, to the date of delivery of the original copy of the payment order in this case from September 28, 2017 to January 7, 2018, which is obvious in the record that the payment order in this case was delivered to the defendant, 10% per annum of the agreed interest rate and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

2. The Defendant asserts that it is unreasonable to seek the full amount of indemnity against the Defendant, on the grounds that the Plaintiff entered into a installment repayment agreement with B, the primary debtor, and received a total of KRW 112,50,000 from B from October 29, 2017 to March 29, 2018.

However, there is no evidence to view that the principal obligation of the Defendant B, which the Defendant guaranteed, was partially repaid.

Rather, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 6, the defendant's debt repaid by Eul is a debt separate from the main debt guaranteed by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(In addition to the above allegations, the defendant's assertion that the claim for reimbursement against the joint and several sureties is improper is not accepted due to lack of legal grounds. 3. The plaintiff's claim for reimbursement is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.