1. The Defendant’s annual interest in KRW 205,582,992 and KRW 56,876,983 among the Plaintiff, from March 2, 2017 to September 27, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 8, 2007, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, B, and C, a principal debtor under a credit guarantee agreement with Busan District Court Decision 2006Da176816, and filed a lawsuit for indemnity amount pursuant to the subrogation against the Defendant, B, and C, a joint guarantor, and on May 8, 2007, the judgment of the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund ruled that “The Defendant, B, and C jointly and severally with the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund for KRW 74,141,193 and 68,210,37 shall be 18% per annum from December 5, 201 to April 16, 2003; up to January 5, 2007; up to 16% per annum from the next day to Nov. 28, 2006; and up to 20% per annum from the date of full payment.”

B. On September 27, 2012, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund is the Plaintiff.

A transferred the claim for the judgment fee stated in the paragraph and notified the fact of the transfer to A who is the principal debtor by mail.

C. As of March 1, 2017, the above A

The principal balance of the judgment bond stated in the paragraph is KRW 56,876,983, and the total overdue interest is KRW 148,706,009.

The plaintiff above A.

On March 3, 2017, the instant payment order was filed to extend the prescription period for the claim stated in the claim.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number in the case of provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, inasmuch as the Plaintiff applied for the payment order in this case for the extension of the extinctive prescription of the claim established by the final judgment of the above Busan District Court case No. 2006Da176816, it is reasonable to deem that the lawsuit in this case has the benefit of lawsuit as a re-litigation for the interruption of extinctive prescription. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant as the primary debtor is obligated to pay

B. The defendant.