1. The Defendant’s KRW 600,000,000 as well as annual 5% from May 30, 2014 to November 24, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 and the overall purport of the pleadings:

On August 4, 2006, the Korean Agriculture-NFFF granted a loan of KRW 500,000,000 to the Korean War Veterans Welfare Association on August 4, 2006, with the due date set on August 4, 2009, and the Defendant provided a joint and several guarantee for the above loan obligations within the limit of KRW 600,000,000 on the same day.

(hereinafter the above loan is “instant loan,” and the above guarantee is “the instant guarantee”). B.

On June 29, 2011, the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation transferred the instant loan claims to a limited liability company specialized in DNA securitization. On July 4, 2011, the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation notified the Korea War Veterans Welfare Association of the said transfer. On April 30, 2014, the United Nations Specialized company transferred the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff, and notified the Korea War Veterans Welfare Association of the said transfer on May 7, 2014.

C. As of May 14, 2014, the instant loan remains the principal of KRW 500,000,000, interest of KRW 295,150,684, a total of KRW 795,150,684.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s guaranteed obligation owed to the Plaintiff is an incidental or incidental to the principal obligation, and if a claim against the principal obligor is transferred, the obligation to be borne by the Plaintiff is also transferred to the guarantor, barring any special agreement between the parties, and in this case, the requisite for setting up against the assignment of the obligation is sufficient if it satisfies the requirements for setting up against the principal obligation and does not require any separate requirements for setting up against the principal obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da21509, Sept. 10, 2002). In the assignment of obligation, if it satisfies the requirements for setting up against the principal obligor, such as the notification of the assignment of obligation to the principal obligor, the obligation is effective against the guarantor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 75Da1100, Apr. 13, 1976). According to