1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 87,093,739 among the Plaintiff and KRW 85,20,229 among the Plaintiff, 12% per annum from August 9, 2014 to August 31, 2015.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), facts such as the entry of the reasons for the claim in the annexed sheet are recognized.

B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 12% per annum from August 9, 2014 to August 31, 2015, which is the following day of subrogation for the total amount of principal and interest of KRW 87,093,739, and its principal and interest of KRW 85,20,229,229, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 8% per annum from September 1, 2015 to September 21, 2016, the delivery date of the instant complaint, and from the following day to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant NongHyup Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CHyup Bank”) has preferential right to benefit under the trust agreement on apartment housing sold by the Defendant with respect to loans to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff succeeded preferential right to benefit by subrogation of the Defendant’s debt to the Nonghyup Bank.

Furthermore, since the Plaintiff acquired the preferential right to benefit as a collateral pursuant to Article 21 of the Credit Guarantee Agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant’s indemnity obligation against the Plaintiff was extinguished.

B. Determination 1) Even if the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the priority beneficiary in a real estate security trust contract for an apartment sold in lots by the Defendant as alleged by the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, this is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff acquired the right of indemnity against the Defendant as a collateral for the right of indemnity, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone was acquired in lieu of the repayment of the right of indemnity. Furthermore, Article 21 of the Credit Guarantee Agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (i) (ii) of the Credit Guarantee Agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (i.e., “the consent to receive the repayment of the obligation under this Agreement in the event that the Corporation returned to the security established by