1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a housing finance credit guarantee entrustment contract (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”) with the following contents under the Korea Housing Finance Corporation Act (hereinafter “Act”).

Article 1 (Scope of Entrustment of Affairs) The scope of affairs of the Housing Guarantee Fund entrusted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff shall be as follows:

1. Article 9 (Obligations of Entrusted Institutions) (1) of the Act on the Management of Housing Finance Credit Guarantee for an individual (including alteration of conditions), the Plaintiff shall handle the affairs entrusted by the Defendant with the care of a good manager;

(2) The Plaintiff shall comply with the Act, the Enforcement Decree, the Enforcement Rule of the Act, and the provision that the Defendant determines and notifies.

(3) When the Plaintiff violated the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2), the Defendant may be exempted from all or part of the guarantee liability in accordance with the “Immunity” that the Defendant decided and notified to the Plaintiff.

B. On October 17, 2011, A entered into a lease contract with respect to an apartment located in the Gu and Gu and Si (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with respect to the lease period from November 27, 2011 to November 26, 2013, and with respect to the lease deposit amounting to KRW 83 million.

C. On November 30, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with A as an institution entrusted with the Defendant’s business (hereinafter “instant credit guarantee agreement”) with a maturity of KRW 45 million until November 30, 2013, and issued a housing financing electronic guarantee (hereinafter “instant guarantee agreement”), and granted a loan of KRW 50 million to A with a worker’s house lease fund as security.

A on August 21, 2013, extended the period of the lease between B and B until November 26, 2015, and entered into a lease agreement to increase the lease deposit to KRW 15 million, and filed an application for the change of the conditions of the guarantee to the Defendant.

As an institution entrusted with the defendant's business, the plaintiff extended the term of guarantee of the credit guarantee agreement of this case to A on November 30, 2015.

E. The plaintiff is Seoul Central District Court.