The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 80 million won with 18% interest per annum from September 1, 2006 to May 14, 2009 and 20% interest per annum from May 15, 2009 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. The part on the payment of money as referred to in paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

A. The assertion

The plaintiffs set the period of repayment of KRW 30 million to the defendant, April 15, 2001, and interest rate of KRW 18% per annum, and set the period of repayment of KRW 500 million on February 5, 2001 to KRW 18% per annum, respectively, and set the period of repayment of KRW 500 million on May 7, 2001 and interest rate of KRW 18% per annum. At the defendant's request, the defendant extended the period of repayment and received interest on each of the above loans until August 2006. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above principal of the lending and interest and delay damages after September 1, 2006 to the plaintiffs.

B. Determination

This Court's reasoning is the same as that stated in Section 2-A (a) of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court cites it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. The assertion

The plaintiffs set the payment period of KRW 30 million on January 15, 2001 at the rate of 18% per annum on April 15, 2001, and on February 5, 2001, each loan of KRW 500 million was made at the maturity of May 7, 2001 and interest rate of KRW 18% per annum on each of the above loans of this case (hereinafter the above loans of this case "each of the above loans of this case"), and received the bill of this case in lieu of the loan certificate in lieu of the loan certificate. The defendant guaranteed each of the loans of this case against the plaintiff of non-party 1 corporation. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs interest and delay damages after September 1, 2006 as the guarantor of each of the loans of this case.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the evidence Nos. 3 through 8, evidence Nos. 11, evidence Nos. 11, and evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the testimony of Non-Party 4, and the testimony of Non-Party 6 of Non-Party 6 of the first instance trial witness, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

(1) The defendant and the non-party 1 corporation are corporations engaged in the profit-making business of ○○ Private Teaching Institutes, and shareholders are the same as ○ Private Teaching Institutes. At the time of issuing each of the instant promissory notes, the non-party 2, the representative director of the non-party 1 corporation, from December 28, 1997 to November 207, and from September 28, 1992 to the date immediately before the issuance of the instant promissory notes, the defendant worked as the representative director of the non-party 1 corporation from January 2, 2001 and from February 5, 2007 to May 23, 2007, respectively. Since 2000, the non-party 2, who was the representative director of the non-party 1 corporation, has overall control over the business of ○○ Building and the new construction of the ○○ Specialized School.

(2) Since around 2000, the non-party 1 corporation could not borrow money because it could not pay the amount of the bill even if the bill was issued with its credit because the financial structure has rapidly aggravated, and thus, according to the direction of the president of the ○○○ Institute, the defendant issued a bill under the name of the defendant to the non-party 1 corporation or provided the funds by means of endorsement on the bill under the name of the non-party 1 corporation. The defendant provided a joint and several surety for most obligations owed by the non-party 1 corporation since 200, and the defendant calculated that the amount of the debt provided to the non-party 1 corporation is equal to the amount of the debt provided to the non-party 1 corporation.

(3) On January 15, 2001 and February 5, 2001, Nonparty 2 ordered Nonparty 3, a relative of the president of ○○ Driving Schools, as the director of Nonparty 1 Company, to raise funds. Accordingly, Nonparty 3 asked the Plaintiffs to receive bills issued by Nonparty 1 Company and lend funds at 18% interest per annum.

(4) As to this, the Plaintiffs demanded the Defendant to endorsement on the bill Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, since it is not good for Nonparty 3’s credit, and accordingly, Nonparty 2 or Nonparty 3 requested the Defendant to deliver the bill of promise Nos. 1 and 2 of this case after completing endorsement in the name of the Defendant on the bill of promise Nos. 1 and 2 of this case. The Plaintiffs lent each of the instant loans without preparing a separate loan certificate. The Plaintiffs received interest from Nonparty 3 until August 2006.

(5) From May 18, 200 to May 7, 2007, Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. borrowed 258,000,000 won in total after issuing each promissory note endorsed by the Defendant from Nonparty 7, on five occasions from May 18, 200 to May 7, 2007. By April 2007, Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd paid interest on the said loan in the name of Nonparty 3 and paid the interest under the name of the Defendant on May 8, 2007.

(6) On December 31, 2006, the Defendant’s account book stated that, around December 31, 2006, the Defendant lent KRW 3,182,50,000 for temporary loans to Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd., and KRW 7,550,000 for bill loans.

C. Determination

(1) In principle, a person who endorsed a promissory note issued by another person shall be liable only for an obligation under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act; however, in the event that there are extenuating circumstances to deem that he/she made an endorsement to the effect that he/she guarantees an obligee’s obligation under the civil law that is the cause of the issuance of a promissory note, he/she shall be held liable for a guarantee for an obligee’s civil obligation. The existence of such special circumstances shall be determined by taking into account all the relevant circumstances, including the actual ownership of profits arising from the legal relations which is the cause of the obligation, the relationship between the obligee and the obligor, the relationship between the obligor and the endorsement, the situation leading to the endorsement, and the circumstances at the time of endorsement (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29538, Sept.

(2) According to the above facts, each loan of this case was made by Nonparty 1 corporation and delivered promissory notes endorsed by the Defendant to Nonparty 1 corporation. However, Nonparty 2, at the time, the representative director of Nonparty 1 corporation, as the general manager of ○○ Building and ○○ Special School, required funds for the construction of the above building. Each loan of this case was used for the construction of ○○ Building and ○ Special School, which is a profit-making business of ○○ Private School. Thus, the actual profit arising from the above loan belongs to the Defendant. ② The Defendant clearly knew the contents of the loan relationship between the Plaintiff and 1 corporation according to the instruction of ○○ Private Institute, and then endorsed it to the Plaintiffs through Nonparty 1 and 2, and the Defendant knew that the loan of this case was made within 0 years from the beginning of this case’s bill of this case, since it is not good for the Plaintiffs to have agreed on the loan of this case’s bill of this case, and it is also reasonable that the Defendant knew that the loan of this case was made within 10 years of this case’s bill of this case’s bill.

(3) The Defendant asserted that the instant loan claim expired after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. However, as seen earlier, since Nonparty 1 Company paid interest on each of the instant loan and approved the instant loan claim by August 2006, the statute of limitations on the instant loan claim began again from September 2006, and accordingly, it is obvious that the instant lawsuit was filed before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. Accordingly, the Defendant’s allegation is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the amount of KRW 800,000,00 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from September 1, 2006 to May 14, 2009, which is the date when the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered that the defendant's appeal as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay the above amount is reasonable, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed without any justifiable reason. The judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, has revoked the part against the plaintiffs as to the order to pay the above amount, and the defendant has ordered the payment of the above amount to the defendant, and the remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed as they are without merit.

Judges Choi Jae-in (Presiding Judge)