The defendant's KRW 57,405,750 and KRW 54,913,920 among the plaintiff's KRW 57,40 and KRW 9% per annum from January 29, 2019 to August 3, 2020.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff and Eul Co., Ltd. entered into a performance guarantee insurance contract, and the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed obligations under the above performance guarantee insurance contract, the plaintiff paid 54,922,640 won to D on July 18, 2018, in subrogation of D according to the performance guarantee insurance contract, and the interest rate of delay damages under the performance guarantee insurance contract at the present rate of 9% per annum. Thus, the defendant, a joint and several surety, is liable to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of 54,913,920 won after returning the amount of indemnity to the plaintiff from July 19, 2018 to January 28, 2019, the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 2,491,830 won in total, 57,405,750 won in total, and the amount of indemnity at the rate of 54,913,920 won in total, 201.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim against the above company is confirmed in the rehabilitation procedure for D, which is the principal debtor, and thus, it cannot be claimed against the defendant. However, Article 250 (2) 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the rehabilitation plan does not affect the rights of rehabilitation creditors or rehabilitation secured creditors against the guarantor of the debtor for whom the rehabilitation procedure has commenced. Thus, even if the rehabilitation procedure commenced with respect to the company which is the principal debtor and the rehabilitation plan has become final and conclusive, the rights against the defendant

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.