1. As to KRW 63,624,36 and KRW 63,451,80 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from July 7, 2015 to July 23, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. In obtaining a loan from the Nonghyup Bank, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a performance guarantee agreement with each of the Defendant on April 27, 201, ① 27 million won from the date of the guarantee period, ② 4 years from the date of the guarantee period, ② 34,94,500 won on May 27, 201, and ④ 4 years from the date of the guarantee period, respectively. In the event that the Plaintiff subrogated in the said performance guarantee agreement, the Defendant agreed to pay the subrogated amount and the damages for delay in accordance with the interest rate as determined by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s rate of damages for delay to be applied to the said case is 12% per annum from July 7, 2015 to the date.

B. On June 30, 2015, the Defendant delayed the repayment of the above loans to the Nonghyup Bank, and the Plaintiff subrogated to the Nonghyup Bank for KRW 63,451,80 ( KRW 27,784,908, KRW 35,66,892). On July 6, 2015, the Plaintiff was unable to receive an administrative fine, penalty, and deposit, KRW 47,372, and KRW 125,164, which were incurred as of July 6, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 63,624,36 (the amount of KRW 63,451,80 in subrogation, the amount of penalty and deposit KRW 47,372 in subrogation, the amount of KRW 125,164 in subrogation) and the amount of KRW 63,451,80 in subrogation, which is the day following the last calculation of interest, from July 7, 2015 to July 23, 2015 when the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant from July 23, 2015, the agreed delay damages rate of KRW 12% per annum, and the amount of delay damages calculated at 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from

3. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted to the effect that it is impossible to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim because the Defendant filed an individual rehabilitation order with Suwon District Court Decision 2015Da100834, including the Plaintiff’s claim, and received an order of prohibition. However, according to Article 593(1)4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the order of prohibition