A. On February 20, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to make a loan contract with B as KRW 25,00,000, period of loan 36 months, and interest rate of loan 28.90% per annum, where a cause for loss of profit under the basic terms and conditions of credit transaction or credit transaction agreement occurs, the Plaintiff agreed to pay damages for delay applying 33.00% per annum to the remaining principal and all obligations related thereto in lump sum by losing the benefit of time, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the said B’s debt.

B. B lost the benefit of September 1, 2013 due to the failure to repay the principal and interest of the above loan obligation. At the time of loss of the benefit of time, B’s obligation is KRW 23,681,668 of the remaining loan, interest 1,687,245 of the unpaid interest, and damages for delay 86,97.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination and defendant's defense

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, barring special circumstances, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay in accordance with the agreed interest rate of 33.00% per annum from September 2, 2013 to the day of full payment for the remaining loans of 23,681,668 won (the unpaid interest of 1,687,245 won) and the remaining loans of 23,681,668 won.

B. At the time of the instant guarantee contract, the Defendant asserted that, at the time of the instant guarantee contract, CD’s purchase and use of used cars under the name of CD in the name of CY, and the guarantee was demanded, the Defendant issued a certificate of personal seal impression by providing the Defendant with the direct sales of the headquarters and the full sales of the headquarters of CY. On the face of SY, D’s purchase by providing one copy of the certificate of personal seal impression. The Defendant asserted that D’s purchase is not a company, but a company, and the vehicle is registered under the name of C in the name of C, which is entirely known to the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is not liable for the payment of the guarantee by D and E’s fraudulent means.

However, each description of No. 1, No. 2, No. 1, and No. 2 is alone.