1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 51,178,529 as well as KRW 11,224,458 as to the Plaintiff. From April 23, 2014 to August 31, 2015.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the grounds for the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the facts in the separate sheet "the grounds for the claim" and "the changed grounds for the claim" are acknowledged.

According to the facts found above, pursuant to a credit guarantee agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “the credit guarantee agreement of this case”), the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of delay damages calculated by adding the amount of subrogated payment to KRW 11,224,458, KRW 37,569,351, KRW 806,820, additional guarantee fee of KRW 1,57,90, and the amount of subrogated payment to KRW 11,224,458, which is the following day of the date of subrogation, to KRW 12% per annum from April 23, 2014 to August 31, 2015; and KRW 8% per annum from the following day until November 4, 2016, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint; and KRW 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the apartment sale contract was rescinded between the Defendant and the Korea Land Trust with respect to the intermediate payment loan agreement subject to the instant credit guarantee agreement, and that the Plaintiff received an intermediate payment loan in the name of the Defendant from the Korea Land Trust, so the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for reimbursement was extinguished.

However, the plaintiff only claims against the defendant for the remainder after deducting the amount collected from the defendant's cancellation of the apartment sale contract from the amount of indemnity under the credit guarantee agreement of this case, and the plaintiff's claim for indemnity against the defendant cannot be fully extinguished merely because some of the amount was recovered from the cancellation of the apartment sale contract of this case. Thus, the defendant's claim cannot be accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.