1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay KRW 181,808,082 to the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3...

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(However, the "creditor" is deemed to be the "defendant" for the plaintiff and the "debtor". 【The grounds for recognition】 Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 to 4

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion 1, the Defendants asserted that, if the Plaintiff’s person responsible for the payment of the limit of the instant collateral guarantee, the amount of the principal debtor C, as if he would reduce the amount of the instant loan, shall be paid in KRW 59,00,00,00, which is the primary debtor, and that, at the time of the instant loan or partial repayment, the Defendants could not accept the Plaintiff’s claim since he could not hear any interest other than the limit of the collateral guarantee. However, in the collateral guarantee that set the limit of the guarantee amount, unless there are special circumstances, the guaranteed obligation includes both the principal obligation and its interest, penalty, damages, and other principal obligation within the limit of the guarantee amount, and the guarantor shall be liable to the extent of the guarantee amount unless there is any remainder of the obligation within the guarantee amount.

In this case, the Defendants, the guarantor, did not bear any further liability if they repaid the limit of collateral guarantee on behalf of the principal debtor. However, even if C, the principal debtor, repaid KRW 559,00,000, which is the limit of collateral guarantee, as long as the attempted interest of the instant loan remains, the Defendants, the guarantor, are still liable for the repayment within the limit of collateral guarantee.

3) In addition, as alleged by the Defendants, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s person in charge of the payment of the principal and interest of the loan did not mislead C to have the maximum amount of the loan repaid, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 7 and 8, it is only determined that the Plaintiff’s person in charge of the payment provided explanation that the principal obligor or the guarantor still bears the responsibility to pay the remainder of the loan remaining after the partial repayment of the principal