A. On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff leased KRW 40 million to Defendant B with interest rate of KRW 1 million per annum (30% per annum); and (b) on December 19, 2014, Defendant C guaranteed Defendant B’s obligation to return the said loan.

However, the Defendants paid to the Plaintiff KRW 1 million on January 20, 2015, KRW 1 million on February 20, 2015, KRW 1 million on March 18, 2015, KRW 1 million on April 20, 2015, KRW 1 million on May 19, 2015, KRW 1 million on May 19, 2015, KRW 7 million on July 18, 2015, and KRW 1 million on August 22, 2015.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the principal amounting to KRW 40 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum, which is the highest interest rate stipulated in the Interest Limitation Act, within the scope of the agreed interest rate, from August 4, 2015 to the date of full payment.

B. On November 20, 2014, Defendant B asserted by the Defendants: (a) actually received KRW 36 million from the Plaintiff, subtracting the amount of KRW 1 million and KRW 4 million from the Plaintiff; and (b) thereafter, the Defendants paid KRW 7 million to the Plaintiff on the same day as the Plaintiff alleged by the Plaintiff.

In addition, Defendant B had a claim amounting to KRW 25 million, value-added tax amounting to KRW 3 million against the Plaintiff. However, each of the above claims was appropriated according to the declaration of offset or set-off agreement.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 7,489,725, the principal amount of the loan, and only the damages for delay after April 23, 2016.

2. Determination

A. In the event that the Plaintiff incurred the Defendants’ debt against the Plaintiff, on November 20, 2014, lent the principal amount of KRW 40 million to Defendant B with interest rate of KRW 30 million per annum, maturity of payment December 19, 2014, and Defendant C’s joint and several guarantee of the Defendant B’s debt did not conflict between the parties. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff within the maximum interest rate stipulated under the Interest Limitation Act.