A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30,000,000 from the Defendant, who worked as a restaurant employee in Busan, to the Defendant for opening a restaurant, and demanded Nonparty C to lend KRW 30,000 to the Defendant.

In addition, at the time, the Plaintiff entered into a guarantee agreement with the above C as to the above monetary loan for consumption.

However, the Defendant failed to pay the above borrowed money to C, and the Plaintiff received a loan on February 20, 2012 and repaid the said borrowed money as a guarantor instead of the said borrowed money.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is demanding the Defendant to pay 15% interest per annum from November 3, 2016 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint.

B. The defendant's assertion that KRW 30,000,000 received from the above C was donated to the defendant, or that the plaintiff is the borrower and the defendant is only the guarantor.

2. According to the statement Nos. 1 and 2 (including the serial number) to which the authenticity is established according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant borrowed 30,000 won from the above C on March 19, 2009, and the plaintiff guaranteed the defendant's above loan obligation, and the fact that the plaintiff repaid the above loan with the defendant on behalf of the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff who repaid the defendant's debt as the principal obligor has the right to claim the above money and damages for delay against the defendant, so the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.

On the other hand, the defendant received donations.

Although there is no evidence to acknowledge this fact, the defendant's assertion that it is merely a guarantor is not acceptable.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is justified.