A. Defendant D borrowed 50 million won at an annual interest rate of 18% from E on September 1, 2014, and agreed between E and E to pay the principal in installments of 1 million won on October 1, 2014 and interest calculated at a rate of 18% per annum on the first day of each month. Defendant B and C, who are Defendant D’s children, jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant D’s above obligations to Defendant D.

B. On November 30, 2017, E transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the transfer on November 30, 2017 and December 8, 2017, respectively.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendants, as the primary debtor and joint and several guarantors, are jointly and severally liable to pay 50 million won a loan to the Plaintiff, which is the assignee of the claim, and Defendant B, from January 20, 2018, the following day after he/she was served with the duplicate of the complaint; Defendant C, from May 30, 2018, the following day after he/she was served with the duplicate of the complaint; Defendant D, from January 27, 2018, from January 27, 2018 to the day after he/she was served with the duplicate of the complaint, is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Special Act on

B. First, Defendant D agreed not to claim the principal when the interest is paid solely on the basis of the loan certificate, notwithstanding the statement in the loan certificate, and Defendant D actually paid the interest to E at the time. Therefore, Defendant D alleged that the Plaintiff’s claim for the principal of the loan is unreasonable. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion (the fact that the principal of the loan was not repaid on the second date for pleading). The Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

C. Defendant C asserts to the effect that Defendant C’s mother’s seal imprint is invalid as a joint and several surety by stealing his own seal imprint, but Defendant C’s above loan certificate.