2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. On March 8, 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) on March 8, 2006, determined and lent KRW 12 million to the Defendant as interest rate of 60% per annum; (b) June 8, 2006, as joint and several surety C; and (c) the Plaintiff was paid interest or delay damages incurred until August 8, 2006, among the above loans by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (a certificate of delegation, the defendant's signature and seal affixed to the document is presumed to have established the authenticity of the document as a whole due to the lack of dispute over the part of the document's signature and seal affixed. Accordingly, the defendant puts his signature on a blank document at C's request, and the signature was transcribed through a letter of delegation, and C's seal kept by the defendant was forged by using the seal affixed, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it). The testimony by the witness C of

B. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 12 million won with 60% interest rate per annum from August 9, 2006 to June 29, 2007, which is the date following the date of payment of the last damages for delay, and 30% interest rate per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014) until July 15, 2016, the service date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, and 15% interest rate per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the same Act (amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014) and the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case must be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.

The judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.