2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s summary 1) on September 8, 2008, the Plaintiff leased KRW 50 million to the Defendant, and KRW 20,000,00 to the first patrolman on November 2008, with interest rate of KRW 2.4% per month. Around June 2009, the Plaintiff changed the interest rate of KRW 2% per month. However, the Defendant began to delay payment of interest from July 30, 2010 and did not pay all interest and principal after September 10, 2013. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest that have not yet been paid as stated in the purport of the claim. (ii) Since the Defendant permitted the Plaintiff to use his name, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

3) Even if a monetary loan contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is not recognized, the Defendant assisted C to use the Defendant’s seal impression certificate and the Defendant’s account in the name of the Plaintiff and to receive money from the Plaintiff. As seen above, C is a member of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s act of receiving money from the Plaintiff as a loan from the Plaintiff constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant provided his seal impression certificate and the account to C and facilitate the tort, the Defendant, a joint tortfeasor, is liable to pay the amount indicated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff. (B) The Defendant did not have any problem with the Plaintiff, and there was no fact that the Defendant concluded a monetary loan contract with the Plaintiff.

The monetary loan contract that the plaintiff concluded is only a contract that the former husband of the defendant made with the name and seal of the plaintiff, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the contract has its effect on the defendant.

2 Even if Article 24 of the Commercial Act applies to monetary transactions between the Plaintiff and C, the grounds for the interruption of extinctive prescription arising in relation to C cannot be deemed to have effect on the Defendant.