A. As regards 15,00,000 won, the full payment shall be made from October 12, 2005.

A. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, defendant D is obligated to pay the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 30 million from May 25, 2003 to 24% per annum on May 25, 2004, and the interest rate of KRW 15 million on December 25, 2003 to 30% per annum on December 25, 2004. According to the above facts of recognition, defendant D is obligated to pay the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 30 million.

B. Furthermore, with respect to 15 million won out of the above borrowed loan amounting to 30 million won, the Plaintiff claims for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from May 26, 2004 to the agreed rate of 15 million won, and at the rate of 25% per annum from December 26, 2004 to the remainder of 15 million won.

As seen earlier, Defendant D, at the time of borrowing KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff, agreed on the interest rate of 24% per annum and 30% per annum at the time of borrowing KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff. However, in full view of the whole purport of the pleading in the statement No. 3-2, Defendant D is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated by the agreement from October 12, 2005 to October 11, 2005, on the following day, since it can be acknowledged that the interest was paid until October 11, 2005 with respect to the above borrowed amount, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part is with merit within the scope of the above recognition.

C. Therefore, Defendant D is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated by applying the respective ratio of 25% per annum to the Plaintiff within the agreed rate from October 12, 2005 to the loan amount of KRW 30 million and KRW 15 million from May 25, 2003 to the loan amount of KRW 24% per annum from October 12, 2005 to the agreement rate of KRW 15 million, and from December 25, 2003 to the loan amount of KRW 15 million from October 12, 2005 to the Plaintiff.

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. The joint-use Plaintiff asserts that Defendant C and Defendant D jointly borrowed KRW 30 million as seen earlier from the Plaintiff.

The evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (written loan) shown as consistent with the above alleged facts cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of Defendant C with respect to Defendant C, and No. 3-1, 3-2.