1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. C Co., Ltd. held D’s claim amounting to KRW 46,271,091 for overdue interest until March 24, 2019 (hereinafter “instant claim”). However, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the instant claim.

B. On June 28, 2013, C Co., Ltd. transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff, and notified the assignment of the claim, and the interest rate for delay under Article 11 of the Credit Counseling and Recovery Fund Trust Business Regulations is 15% per annum.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the above Business Regulations from March 25, 2019 to the date of full payment, with respect to the total amount of KRW 55,128,921 (i.e., KRW 8,857,830, KRW 46,271,091) and the remaining principal amount of KRW 8,857,830, which is the day following the date of calculating overdue interest.

2. Determination as to whether the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the instant claim

A. Therefore, it is difficult to acknowledge the authenticity of the Defendant’s signature portion indicated in the evidence No. 4 (No. 2) as to whether the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the instant claim. However, according to the evidence No. 1, the Defendant’s signature on July 21, 1994, which is the date on which the evidence No. 4 was prepared, can be known that the Defendant was detained and under criminal trial. Thus, the Defendant’s signature on the evidence No. 4 cannot be deemed to have been made by the Defendant. ② In light of the fact that the Defendant’s pen as indicated in the evidence No. 5-1, which recognizes the Defendant’s signature, and the Defendant’s pen as indicated in the above evidence No. 4, are different from the Defendant’s body, it is difficult to acknowledge the authenticity of the Defendant’s signature portion indicated in the evidence No. 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity.

B. Furthermore, according to the statement No. 5-1, the Defendant’s statement to the Plaintiff around July 20, 2015.