1. As to KRW 214,128,518 and KRW 63,48,478 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall annually year from August 24, 2017 to December 23, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Korea Technology Finance Corporation entered into a credit guarantee agreement with Defendant A on December 4, 200, and Defendant A Co., Ltd. borrowed KRW 100 million from the Korea Technology Finance Corporation as security on December 5, 2000.

B. The Defendant A Co., Ltd. delayed interest on May 5, 2004 and caused a guarantee accident, and the Credit Guarantee Fund subrogated to the Hanmi Bank on August 20, 2004 for KRW 87,533,698.

C. On September 28, 2007, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation filed a lawsuit claiming reimbursement against Defendant A and joint surety Co., Ltd. against the Seoul Central District Court 2007da224394 amounting to September 28, 2007, "the defendants jointly and severally filed a lawsuit claiming reimbursement and KRW 87,313,638 amounting to KRW 14% per annum from August 20, 2004 to November 19, 2004; and KRW 16% per annum from the next day to September 8, 2007; and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment."

On September 27, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the claim against the Defendant from the Korea Technology Finance Corporation, and the Korea Technology Finance Corporation sent the notice of transfer to the Defendant by content-certified mail on November 1, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Gap 3-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 12% per annum from August 24, 2017 to December 23, 2017 and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, with respect to the total amount of principal and interest of KRW 214,128,518 and the remaining principal and interest of KRW 63,48,478.

The representative liquidator of the defendant asserts that the defendant A discontinued his/her business, and the representative liquidator himself/herself is subject to bankruptcy and immunity, so the plaintiff's claim is unfair.

However, a corporation was dissolved.

Even if remaining remaining business remains, it shall be deemed to continue to exist within the scope for the execution of the remaining business until the completion of the liquidation. The claim in this case shall be the liquidator.