1. The Defendant: KRW 38,003,368 among the Plaintiff and KRW 37,824,148 among them, and the Defendant’s payment thereof from March 14, 2013 to January 31, 2016.

According to Gap 1-7's statements, where the plaintiff paid a loan from the Industrial Bank of Korea on November 30, 201, and the plaintiff paid a loan on behalf of the Industrial Bank of Korea, and the plaintiff paid a loan on behalf of the Industrial Bank of Korea in lieu of the above loan, the plaintiff shall pay the principal of the payment on behalf of the plaintiff, penalty, and damages for delay based on the rate of delay damages determined by the plaintiff, and the defendant issued a credit guarantee certificate. The defendant guaranteed the plaintiff's joint and several obligations, such as the indemnity under the above credit guarantee agreement with the plaintiff. Eul submitted the credit guarantee certificate to the Industrial Bank of Korea and received 37 million won from the Industrial Bank of Korea on November 30, 201, and Eul was unable to repay the above loan, and the plaintiff paid a penalty on behalf of the Industrial Bank of Korea on March 14, 2013. The penalty accrued during the above process was 179,20 grounds, and the rate of delay damages determined by the plaintiff shall be 10% from December 13, 2016, 20120.

According to the facts found above, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 38,003,368 won (=37,824,148 won by subrogation) and 37,824,148 won by subrogation, 12% per annum, which is the agreed delay interest rate from March 14, 2013 to January 31, 2016, and 10% per annum, which is the agreed delay interest rate from the next day to August 8, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 10% per annum, which is the agreed delay interest rate from the next day to the day of full payment, to the day of full payment.

The defendant asserts that the procedure of bankruptcy and exemption is in progress, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that immunity has become final and conclusive, so the above argument cannot be a ground for rejecting the plaintiff's claim.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.