A. On December 13, 2016, Co-Defendant B Co-Defendant B (hereinafter “Co-Defendant”) approved that the basic terms and conditions for banking transactions apply from the Plaintiff, and borrowed KRW 3.5 million on December 13, 2019 upon setting the maturity period to be paid on a monthly basis, and on December 13, 2019, the Defendant, the representative of the Co-Defendant B, who is a co-Defendant, jointly and severally guaranteed the above loans owed to the Plaintiff by the Co-Defendant with the maximum guarantee amount of the same day as KRW 3.8.5 million.

B. On June 28, 2017, the co-defendant lost the benefit of time due to delay in interest, etc., and on November 7, 2017, the amount of unpaid principal as of November 7, 2017 is KRW 34,027,778, the amount of accrued interest, KRW 1,890,07, the amount of accrued interest, and overdue interest is KRW 1,845,890, and the amount of overdue interest under the credit transaction agreement between the co-defendant and the Plaintiff is 15% per annum.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, as a joint and several surety, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum to the plaintiff within the limit of 38,50,000 won, and to the extent of 37,763,675 won (=34,027,7881,890,071,845,890) and to the principal amount of KRW 34,047,78, which is the following day of the above base date, for damages for delay calculated at the rate of 34,027,778 won from November 8, 2017, which is the following day of the above base date to the day of full payment.

B. The Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s defense is the formal representative of the co-defendant, and the Defendant, as the representative of the co-defendant, did not clearly recognize the fact that the joint and several surety was jointly and severally guaranteed at the time of the instant case, and was written in the form of a continuing guarantee presented by the Plaintiff, and was unable to hear specific explanation from the Plaintiff on the content of the continuing guarantee, and did not agree with the letter of continuing guarantee as to the limit of

Therefore, the defendant.