A. On February 10, 2014, Defendant B borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff on the joint and several sureties of Defendant C and D until the due date of payment until April 10, 2014, with interest rate fixed at 5%.

hereinafter referred to as "the primary loan".

B. On February 19, 2014, Defendant B borrowed an additional KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff as of March 15, 2014.

hereinafter referred to as "second loan".

(C) Defendant B paid the sum of KRW 900,00 (30,000 each three times) out of the borrowed amount. Defendant B did not designate one of the above two borrowed amounts between March 2, 2015 and September 2015, and repaid KRW 9,100,00 to the Plaintiff without designating one of the above two borrowed amounts, and the Plaintiff consented to the appropriation of the principal. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, Party B’s entries in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination:

A. If the second loan is appropriated for the principal of the second loan with a large amount of profit from repayment of 9,100,000 won repaid by Defendant B, this would be extinguished by the repayment of the second loan.

B. The Defendants of the first loan are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the first loan amount of KRW 30 million and damages for delay from April 11, 2014, the following day after the due date for payment.

However, the rate of damages for delay is 5% per annum, i.e. 60% per annum, which is too high, in light of all circumstances, such as the status of the plaintiff and the defendant, mutual relationship with them, and the background of the loan, and thus it violates social order, and thus, it is ex officio reduced

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay 25% per annum from April 11, 2014 to March 19, 2016, which is the date of final delivery of the instant complaint filed by the Plaintiff, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

As to this, Defendant C claimed that at the time of the second loan, Defendant C was exempted from the joint and several liability for the first loan, while Defendant C was exempted from the joint and several liability for the first loan. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

3. Conclusion