1. The defendant shall pay 150,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from December 12, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 19, 2003, the Sejong Telecom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sol Telecom”) entered into an agreement with the Korea Development Bank for industrial operation loan loans of KRW 10,300,000. The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the above loans of the Sejong Telecom.

B. The principal of the loan obligation of the Sejong Telecom is KRW 158,803,016 as of December 31, 2012.

C. On February 7, 2013, Korea Development Bank transferred to the Defendant the above loan claims on the Telecom and the joint and several liability claims on the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on May 27, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 150,000,000,000 for the principal of the above loan and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from December 12, 2014 to the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, which is the day after the day of complete payment.

3. The defendant's defenses that the extinctive prescription of a joint and several surety claim against the defendant has expired.

In addition, the above joint and several liability claims are commercial claims with five years of extinctive prescription. However, in full view of the purport of the argument in the statement in subparagraph 3, the Sejong Telecom filed a petition for bankruptcy on May 11, 2006 (Seoul District Court Decision 2006Hau4), and the Korea Development Bank filed a claim registration statement on June 14, 2006 and participated in the above bankruptcy procedure, and the above bankruptcy procedure has not been terminated.

Article 32 subparag. 2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the interruption of prescription against participation in bankruptcy proceedings shall be effective, and the interruption of prescription resulting therefrom shall remain effective while the bankruptcy proceedings are pending, unless there are special circumstances.

According to the above facts, the above facts of recognition are examined.