1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,243,271 within the scope of KRW 39,00,000 and KRW 25,751,372 among the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 25,751,372 on February 13, 2016.

1. Determination as to the cause of the claim (Provided, That the creditor is the plaintiff, the debtor is the defendant) is liable to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 8.5% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate of KRW 35,243,271, and the principal amount of KRW 25,751,372, within the limit of KRW 39,000,000,000, the total amount of principal and interest within the limit of KRW 39,000,000,000,000, the total amount of KRW 39,000,000,000,000,000 from February 13, 2016

2. As to the defendant's defense, the defendant's defense is proved to the purport that the above joint and several guarantee contract should be cancelled due to mistake or the defendant's liability should be limited to the amount of KRW 30 million, which is the loan, because the plaintiff failed to provide guidance and explanation on the contract for joint and several guarantee, which is the joint and several guarantee, but according to the statement in Gap evidence 1-2, the defendant receives copies of the basic terms and conditions of bank credit transaction, transaction agreement, and contract for transaction between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and provides explanation on the important contents of the above terms and conditions, transaction agreement, and contract for transaction guarantee, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and therefore, the defendant's defense is

In addition, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff's failure to collect the loan to the principal debtor due to the plaintiff's failure to perform the collection of the loan to the principal debtor during the voluntary auction procedure for the building, which is the object of lease, could not respond to the plaintiff's request. However, the statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone is insufficient to recognize it. The defendant's assertion

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.