1. The Defendant’s annual interest in KRW 149,519,895 and KRW 148,572,750 among the Plaintiff, from March 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the facts in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 4 are recognized.

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, pursuant to the credit guarantee agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “credit guarantee agreement of this case”), the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by applying the annual rate of 12% per annum from March 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015, to the Plaintiff, including the remainder of 148,572,750 won in subrogation, the fixed delay damages of 975 won in arrears, the guarantee fees of 3,130 won in arrears, the additional guarantee fees of 943,040 won, and the amount of subrogated payment of 149,519,895 won in subrogation, and the amount of 148,572,750 won in subrogation, which is the day following the date of subrogated payment, from March 1, 2014 to August 22, 2015; and 8% per annum from the next day to June 22, 2016.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. A summary of the argument 1) The instant credit guarantee agreement was concluded at the same time with an intermediate payment loan agreement in the process of purchasing an apartment, and since the Plaintiff failed to fulfill its duty to explain clearly regarding the said credit guarantee agreement, the instant credit guarantee agreement is null and void in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions and the Banking Act (hereinafter “Section 1”).

(2) The Plaintiff should recover the amount of subrogation by filing a claim against the executor and the contractor, not the claim for reimbursement against the Defendant, who is the buyer, or by selling the apartment sold by the Defendant by public auction, etc.

(3) As to an intermediate payment loan agreement, which is the object of the instant credit guarantee agreement, the apartment sales contract was rescinded between the Defendant and the Korea Land Trust, and thus, the Plaintiff received an intermediate payment loan under the name of the Defendant from the Korea Land Trust, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against the Defendant was extinguished (hereinafter “Section 3”).