보증채무금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 51,200,000 as well as 5% per annum from February 11, 2014 to October 31, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
1. On February 23, 2012, the Defendant: “The Plaintiff lent KRW 360,00,000 to B; the Defendant guaranteed the repayment of the obligation to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant guarantee”); the due date shall be May 15, 2012, the interest shall be paid at the rate of zero percent (0%) and shall be paid in lump sum at the maturity. The fact that the Defendant prepared and implemented a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff on February 23, 2012 that “The Plaintiff shall be subject to the annual interest rate of twelve percent (12%) does not conflict between the parties; or that it may be recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as set forth in subparagraphs 1-1 and 2.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 240,00,00 to B on May 15, 2012 (hereinafter “instant loan”). However, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 360,00,000 as a total sum of KRW 120,000 at the time of repayment. However, documents were written by changing the principal amount at B’s request to KRW 360,000,000, KRW 239,782,000 in the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s land, KRW 300,000, KRW 300, KRW 200, KRW 2000, KRW 300, KRW 209, KRW 209, KRW 2000, KRW 3600, KRW 2000, KRW 209, KRW 2000, KRW 36,200, KRW 209, KRW 2000, KRW 36,29,20029.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant guarantee agreement has no effect of the instant guarantee agreement, and the instant guarantee agreement is strictly interpreted as long as the conditions for rescission have been fulfilled as the contract under the condition for rescission as seen below.