1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. As to the part of the underlying facts, the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages in proportion to 43,985,249 won (43,984,812 won for failure to recover subrogation and 437 won for delay delay) and 43,984,812 won for failure to recover subrogation as of October 23, 2017, the date of subrogation, which is the date of the decision of the court of first instance, to dispute the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform, from October 23, 2017, until March 22, 2019, which is the date of the decision of the court of first instance, 12% per annum of agreed delay damages and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Under the rehabilitation procedure (Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2017 Ma100140) of the Defendant’s primary debtor (hereinafter “non-party company”) the Defendant’s primary debtor (hereinafter “non-party company”) 16.8% of the amount of subrogation and interest prior to commencement shall be paid in cash in installments, but the remaining 83.2% of the amount shall be converted into equity in lieu of repayment of rehabilitation claims, and as such, the Defendant’s guarantee obligation shall also be reduced or exempted in the same proportion as that of the non-party company’s rehabilitation plan.

B. (1) We examine the effect of the rehabilitation plan against the non-party company on the defendant who is the guarantor.

According to Article 250 (2) 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the change of the right arising from the authorization of the rehabilitation plan for the debtor debtor does not affect the guarantor of the debtor debtor in principle. The Regional Credit Guarantee Foundation applied to the plaintiff does not have special provisions that reduce the guarantor's debt in the same proportion as the rehabilitation plan approval plan for the debtor is applied to the Korea Technology Finance Corporation Act and Article 30-3 of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act.

Therefore, the defendant shall be the plaintiff on the ground that the principal obligation was modified or reduced in the rehabilitation plan.