1. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 60,000,000.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 18, 2007, the Plaintiff loaned credit items to D as “corporate driving trade finance” and loaned KRW 250 million to D, and the Defendant jointly guaranteed the above loan obligations within the limit of KRW 60 million.

(hereinafter referred to as “first loan”). (b)

On February 19, 2008, the Plaintiff loaned credit items to D as a “general loan for business operation,” and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan amounting to KRW 160 million within the limit of KRW 140 million.

(hereinafter “Second Loan”) and each of the above loans is “each of the instant loans” (hereinafter “each of the instant loans”).

As of October 28, 2019, KRW 116,175,255 (in total, KRW 44,980,00 (in total, KRW 71,195,255) and KRW 303,997,254 (in total, KRW 116,758,290) and KRW 187,238,964) remain.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 24 million, which is the sum of the limit on the guarantee of each of the loans of this case (= KRW 60 million) to the Plaintiff, as sought by the Plaintiff, in the absence of any special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because the Defendant made a decision to grant bankruptcy immunity to himself.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that each of the loans in this case is non-exempt claims since the defendant did not enter them in the list of creditors in bad faith.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Changwon District Court rendered a decision to exempt the Defendant from liability on March 17, 2014, which became final and conclusive on April 1, 2014, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim was not entered in the list of creditors submitted by the Defendant in the foregoing case.

Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.