1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 32,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 20, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in the statement No. 1.

On June 30, 2014, while lending KRW 30 million to C on June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 32 million in addition to interest if C fails to pay KRW 15 million each on March 31, 2016 and April 30, 2016.

On the same day, the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed C's above loan obligation to the plaintiff.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant, as a joint and several surety, is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from July 20, 2016 to the date following the delivery date of the payment order of this case, to the date of complete payment, as sought by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff as the joint and several surety.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense dispute

A. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the above KRW 30 million is not a loan, but an investment amount.

B. In the event of a disposal document, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression of intent should be recognized as stated in the language and text, and the burden of proof as to such special circumstance is on the part of the assertion of facts inconsistent with the language and text of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92487 Decided May 13, 2010, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da31308 Decided September 10, 2015). The fact that C and the Defendant drafted a letter of payment with the intent to borrow KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff on March 24, 2016 is without dispute between the parties. Thus, there is no evidence to deem the above KRW 30 million as investment, contrary to the statement in the above letter of payment, which is a disposal document. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.