1. The Defendant’s annual interest in KRW 51,758,477 and KRW 10,463,862 from February 19, 2014 to August 31, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. The facts in the separate sheet of the judgment on the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, or show the overall purport of the pleadings as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7. Thus, the defendant has the obligation to pay to the plaintiff 51,758,477 won (10,463,862 won + 40,276,575 won + overdue charge of 40,276,575 won + 3,030 won + additional guarantee fee of 911,610 + additional guarantee fee of 101,610 + 10,463,862 won + the balance of the expenses for preserving the claim, which is 10,463,862 won from February 19, 2014 to August 31, 2015, the agreement rate of 12% from the day following the date of subrogation, and the annual interest rate of 15% from the day following the date of repayment to the date of repayment of the complaint in this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. At the time of the instant credit guarantee agreement, the Defendant did not clearly explain to the Defendant as to “the fact that the Plaintiff wants to guarantee an intermediate payment bank upon the Defendant’s request,” and did not provide or explain the information or data on the credit guarantee terms and conditions and the contract documents to the Defendant pursuant to Article 24-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Banking Act, so the said credit guarantee agreement is invalid in violation of Article 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act and Article 24-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Banking Act. However, according to the overall purport of the statement and pleading of evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant signed and sealed the credit guarantee agreement to the effect that the Defendant was aware of the content of the instant credit guarantee agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty to explain and explain the content of the instant credit guarantee agreement and provide data.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The defendant also holds that the executor of this case and the trial corporation are the defendant.