A. The Defendants jointly sought KRW 50,000,000 and the claim thereof on August 28, 2013.

A. On August 27, 2013, the Plaintiff leased KRW 50,000,00 to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on the due date for reimbursement of KRW 50,000 to October 31, 2013.

B. At the time, the Defendant Company agreed to pay KRW 60,000,000 plus interest of KRW 10,000,000 on the principal amount at the time of maturity, and the Defendant C guaranteed the above obligation of the Defendant Company.

C. The Plaintiff lent KRW 25,00,000,000 to the Defendant Company on January 9, 2015, and KRW 20,000,000 on January 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, which was in force on August 27, 2013, is 30% per annum, and the interest rate of 10,000,000,000 per annum is converted into the annual interest rate, 112% per annum (10,000,000 ± 50,0000 ± 365/65). Thus, the portion exceeding 30% per annum shall be deemed null and void.

On the other hand, although there is no agreement on the repayment period for KRW 25,00,000 of the above loan, a copy of the complaint of this case which contains a peremptory notice to the defendant company has passed due to the lapse of a considerable period from the date of delivery to the defendant company.

Therefore, the Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, which was enforced from August 28, 2013, the following day after the lending day, to the full payment day. The Defendant Company is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5,00,000 per annum from June 26, 2018 to December 21, 2018, the day following the day when the duplicate of the complaint in this case was served to the Defendant Company, as the Plaintiff seeks, as the Plaintiff seeks, from August 28, 2013 to the day when the copy of the complaint in this case was served to the Defendant Company.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's defendants are examined.