1. The Defendant’s KRW 134,206,092 and KRW 44,934,601 from August 29, 2017 to January 10, 2018, among the above money.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 16, 2000 and September 4, 2000, the Plaintiff guaranteed the Defendant’s loan obligations in respective loans of KRW 9,030,000 from the Middle Agricultural Cooperatives and the Local Livestock Industry Cooperatives.

B. According to the Defendant’s failure to repay its loan obligations, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 44,934,601 on May 26, 2003, and the amount of indemnity claims as of August 28, 2017 is the total of KRW 134,206,092, including the principal of subrogation, delay damages, guarantee fees, and fines for negligence.

C. In the event that the Plaintiff subrogated for the Defendant’s obligation of loans, the rate of damages for delay on the indemnity claim, which the Plaintiff had, is 12% per annum from December 17, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay of KRW 134,206,092 and KRW 44,934,601 out of the above money, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The gist of the defense was ten years after the plaintiff acquired the claim for reimbursement against the defendant, and the lawsuit of this case was brought, and the extinctive prescription of the claim for reimbursement was completed.

B. On August 29, 2017, the fact that the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order on August 29, 2017, when 10 years have elapsed since the date of subrogation for the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of damages, is apparent. However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 3 and 4, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Defendant received a provisional attachment order on August 28, 2002 by using the loan claim against the Defendant (i.e., the claim for reimbursement) against the Defendant as the claim against the Defendant on August 28, 2002 and January 7, 2003. Thus, the above statute of limitations was interrupted.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is therefore groundless.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant is against the plaintiff.