1. The defendant shall pay 50 million won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from June 1, 2006 to the day of complete payment.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 as to the cause of the claim, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "non-party company") leased KRW 100,000,00 to E with the defendant's joint and several sureties under the defendant's joint and several sureties. After the non-party company requested the defendant to pay the payment order (the Jeju District Court Decision 2007 tea870) against the defendant, and on March 8, 2007, "the defendant would pay 10,000,000 won to the non-party company and the amount of delay damages at the rate of KRW 43.8% per annum from June 1, 2006 to the day of full payment, and the payment order became final and conclusive on March 29, 2007; and the defendant may, under special circumstances, obtain the payment order from 00,000 won to 0,006.

Judgment on the defendant's argument

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that since the person who received a loan from the non-party company is E, the defendant is not responsible for the repayment, but since the defendant's joint and several guarantee was the same as the above facts, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. The defendant asserts that the amount actually borrowed from the non-party company is KRW 30,000,000, but the fact that E obtained a loan of KRW 100,000 from the non-party company is as seen earlier, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

C. Upon receiving the above loan, the Defendant transferred the F ownership and the right to a building permit related to the above loan to the non-party company as a collateral. The non-party company asserted that it was not able to obtain the above loan because it did not exercise the ownership and the right to a building permit, and pursuant to the assertion that the above claim was made by promise or payment in substitutes, the evidence No. 11 is sufficient.