1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 184,938,375 as well as KRW 60,00,000 among them, from July 1, 2018 to the day of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On August 21, 2006, C borrowed KRW 60 million from the Plaintiff as of October 10, 2006, and the Defendant guaranteed this. 2) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the guaranteed obligation.

On November 27, 2008, Jinwon District Court rendered a judgment that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff C and each of the plaintiff 60 million won the amount of 5% per annum from October 11, 2006 to May 28, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive.

3) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription. [In the absence of any dispute over grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the principal amount of KRW 60 million and delay damages of KRW 125,978,375 [=4,893,443 won (damage for delay from October 11, 2006 to May 28, 2008)] and delay damages on the principal amount of KRW 121,084,932 (damage for delay from May 29, 2008 to June 30, 2018).

Meanwhile, considering that the statement No. 3 (including additional numbers) added to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 10,400,000 to the Plaintiff from April 15, 2009 to September 6, 2014 may be recognized.

Furthermore, although the defendant alleged that C performed part of the obligation to the plaintiff, it cannot find any evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 1, 2018 to the day of full payment, with respect to KRW 184,938,375 [the above KRW 60 million [the above KRW 125,978,375 - KRW 1,040] and principal KRW 60,000].

2. As such, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.