A. Defendant B and C shall be jointly and severally 30,000,000 won and the corresponding amount shall be from April 19, 2004 to June 29, 2007

On September 13, 2004, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30,000,00 to Defendant B with interest rate of KRW 5% per month and due date of September 23, 2004. Defendant D guaranteed the above obligation of Defendant B.

[Grounds for recognition] As to Defendant B, a judgment by service by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) is rendered against Defendant C: According to the above facts acknowledged as to the entries in subparagraphs 1 through 3 of Article 208(3) of the Civil Procedure Act and the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant B and C shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30 million from April 19, 2004 to March 29, 2007, before the enforcement of the Interest Limitation Act enacted by Act No. 8322 of March 29, 2007, the interest limit amount of KRW 60 per annum pursuant to the above agreement, the interest rate of KRW 30 per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) to the day of full payment, and Defendant B shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of KRW 30,000 to the above 309.

Defendant D’s assertion that Defendant B borrowed KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and Defendant B written 10,000,000 out of the said money, but thereafter, Defendant B returned KRW 10,000,000 to Defendant B.

However, the statement No. 1 in Eul is not sufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Even if Defendant D returned KRW 10,00,000 to Defendant B, the obligee of the above loan is the Plaintiff, and as long as Defendant D guaranteed Defendant B’s obligation to the Plaintiff, it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff, the obligee, on the ground that Defendant D returned KRW 10,000,000 to Defendant B.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

Conclusion.