1. The Defendant’s KRW 44,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from October 29, 2013 to September 30, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 26, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant’s new construction of the Defendant’s factory (hereinafter “instant factory”) within the development project area in Yangsan-si, Yangwon-si, under which the Defendant entered into a contract to subcontract the construction of the Defendant’s new factory within the development project area (hereinafter “instant factory”). Samwon-si Construction again entered into a contract with D (hereinafter “D”).

B. On August 5, 2013, D borrowed KRW 44 million as the construction cost of the instant factory from the Plaintiff, and at the time of completion of the instant factory construction, the due date for repayment was determined as “the time of completion of the instant factory construction (office operation).” The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed D’s obligation to the Plaintiff.

C. D completed the Defendant’s new factory construction on October 15, 2013 (hereinafter “instant factory”) and obtained approval for the use of the instant factory on November 19, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 14 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the above 44 million won as a joint and several surety for the above loan debt and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

In regard to this, the defendant argued to the effect that the factory of this case was not completed, and thus the period of repayment of the above loan obligation has not yet arrived. However, according to each of the above evidence and the above facts of recognition, D completed the construction of the factory of this case on October 15, 2013 and reported the completion of construction to the defendant. On November 19, 2013, approval for use of the factory of this case was granted, and the defendant was registered on the general building ledger with the owner as of the same day. Thus, the factory of this case was completed before November 19, 2013, at least before the above approval date of use. Thus, the defendant's assertion on different premise is without merit.

In addition, the defendant, on July 19, 2013, shall be the principal contractor of the factory construction of this case.