1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the annual amount of KRW 180,150,765 and KRW 59,929,772 from October 26, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. As to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition 1) B, on January 20, 2012, extended a loan of KRW 200,000,000 to KRW 7.5% per annum from the Hansan Credit Union (hereinafter “Dagsan Credit Union”); KRW 20,000 per annum; KRW 30,000,000 per annum; KRW 30,000 per annum; KRW 12.5% per annum; the due date for repayment; and KRW 20,000 on January 20, 2014 (hereinafter “instant loan”); and as of October 25, 2016, the Defendant provided limited collateral guarantee within the limit of KRW 260,00,00,000 for the principal of the instant loan to KRW 59,929,772; and interest and delay damages to KRW 120,20,93.

3) On December 10, 2014, the Plaintiff merged Magsan Trade Union. [The respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, based on recognition, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

B. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 180,150,765 won (120,220,993 won) and damages for delay at the rate of 17.5% per annum from October 26, 2016 to the date of full payment, on which the agreement shall be paid to the plaintiff at the rate of 17.5% per annum from October 26, 2016 to the date of full payment, but shall be liable to pay within the limit of 260,000,000 won.

2. As to the defendant's argument

A. 1) Whether the Defendant, on its own initiative, prepared a collateral guarantee certificate, even if the Defendant: (a) knew that the Defendant created a collateral security on the real estate owned by the Defendant for the obligation of the instant loan; and (b) did not have the intention of collateral security due to the lack of knowledge of providing collateral guarantee; (c) it is null and void. 2) It is difficult to view that the Defendant did not have the intention of collateral security as long as the collateral guarantee certificate was prepared by the Defendant, and therefore

B. 1) Whether the conflict between the parties to the claim violates the duty of explanation and the failure to perform the duty of explanation to the contract terms, which is the contract terms, the guarantee of good faith is null and void. 2) In fact, the Defendant received “the Defendant,” “the Defendant,” “the Defendant,” “the limited amount of guarantee,” “the limited amount of guarantee,” and “the limited amount of guarantee” (the basic terms and conditions for the credit transaction and the copy of this guarantee will have been received clearly) in the column of "the Defendant,” “the limited amount of guarantee,” and “the above terms and conditions and the letter of guarantee.”