2. The Defendant’s KRW 24,256,856 and KRW 13,149,664 among the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 23,56, May 23, 2017.

A. On December 28, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 22,00,000 at the interest rate of 11.9% per annum (amended to 12.1% per annum on September 28, 2012); (b) 19% per annum; (c) due date for repayment on September 27, 2005 (hereinafter “instant loan”); and (d) the Defendant, the spouse of B, as at the time, jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan obligations against the Plaintiff.

B. The maturity of the instant loan claims was extended with the consent of B and the Defendant on September 1, 2005, and the maturity was finally extended on February 25, 2018.

C. Since then, B did not pay interest, etc. on the instant loan obligations, and thereby lost the benefit of time.

As of May 22, 2017, the instant loan claims remain in KRW 13,149,664 as principal and interest or delay damages.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant, as a joint and several surety for the instant loan obligations, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed delay damages calculated at the rate of 19% per annum from May 23, 2017 to the date of full payment, for the principal amount of KRW 24,256,856 (i.e., principal amount of KRW 13,149,664 (interest of KRW 11,107,192) and the principal amount of KRW 13,149,664).

B. As to this, the defendant alleged that the claim of this case was repaid, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge only the statement of Eul No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim should be accepted on the ground of its reason. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the ground of its conclusion, it accepted the plaintiff's appeal and revoked it, and ordered the defendant to pay the above money.