1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 30, 2013 to September 22, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim No. 1, the plaintiff was paid KRW 12,00,000 to C around April 29, 2013 on June 29, 2013 as the maturity date for payment. The agreed rate is set at 2% per month, and the defendant guaranteed the plaintiff's obligation to return loans to the plaintiff. The plaintiff deducted KRW 4,00,000 as the interest of the two-month around April 29, 2013, and the plaintiff was paid KRW 12,00,000 in total as interest for the six-month from the defendant.

According to this, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 10 million won deposit and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from December 30, 2013 to September 22, 2014 when the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the plaintiff from September 30, 2013, and 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's defense asserts that prior to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, C, the principal debtor, must give notice of performance and execute the property.

The guarantor's right to defense of peremptory notice and search can be established when the guarantor proves that the debtor has a financial ability to repay and that it is easy to execute the case, and it cannot be asserted that the debtor merely has a prior claim.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 68Da1271, Sept. 24, 1968). However, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that C, as the principal obligor, has sufficient capacity to repay and its execution is easy, the above assertion by the Defendant is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.