1. The Defendants’ respective KRW 85,163,156 to the Plaintiff, respectively, and 5% per annum from April 1, 2014 to December 15, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund on February 2012, 2012. At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendants, who were executives of the Nonparty Company, jointly and severally guaranteed all obligations, including the amount of indemnity against the Credit Guarantee Fund in accordance with the said credit guarantee agreement.

B. The non-party company received a loan from the E bank as collateral under the above credit guarantee agreement, but failed to repay the loan, and the Credit Guarantee Fund subrogated to the E bank.

(c)

The Plaintiff paid a sum of KRW 255,489,469 to the Credit Guarantee Fund from September 16, 2013 to March 31, 2014, and repaid all the non-party company’s indemnity liability to the Credit Guarantee Fund remaining until the time.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In principle, if there are several guarantors, each of them becomes a guarantor for a separate juristic act, and even if there was no joint and several surety agreement (guarantee agreement) between the guarantors, each of them becomes a guarantor for a separate juristic act, and even if there was no separate interest among the guarantors, each of them must pay the creditors the full amount of its obligations without having any separate interest. However, in the internal relationship between the joint and several guarantors, there is a certain amount of obligation which means the withdrawal of the principal obligation, and the ratio of the share, i.e., the share of obligation, as a matter of course, if there is any special agreement between them, they shall be subject to the equal ratio, unless otherwise stipulated.

Therefore, in a case where one of the joint and several guarantors has repaid the debt in excess of his/her share of expenses (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da70155, Jun. 25, 2009, etc.). (b) In light of the above legal principles, the instant case is deemed to be a health team and the above-mentioned facts.