1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with the co-defendant B of the first instance trial to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay of KRW 14,925,766 and the principal amount of KRW 6,709,242.

On August 31, 2009, the Plaintiff succeeded to all credit-related business and claims, such as the automobile siren of the said company, as a company established after being divided from C&A Capital.

B. On January 29, 2010, Co-Defendant B Co-Defendant B Co., Ltd. entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff to set the lease term of 36 months, monthly rent of 915,00 won, and overdue interest rate of 25% per annum (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed B’s obligations under this lease agreement.

C. After that, B lost the benefit of time due to the delay in the repayment of the lease fee under the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement on July 15, 2010.

Meanwhile, as of June 19, 2015, the unredeemed debt under the instant lease agreement is KRW 14,925,766 in total (=principal interest of KRW 6,709,242 in overdue interest of KRW 8,216,524).

(B) The Plaintiff’s claim based on the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “instant claim”) . 【No dispute over the ground for recognition . 【A,” and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments is as follows: (a) evidence No. 1 (the automobile lease agreement, and the Defendant denies the authenticity of the said agreement, not the Defendant’s writing, but the Defendant’s writing of the said agreement; (b) however, according to the evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff’s name’s stamp image is recognizable to be based on the Defendant’s seal. Therefore, the authenticity

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. (i) The parties’ assertion regarding the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription (i.e., the Defendant’s claim of this case is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription of three years with the royalty claim under Article 163 of the Civil Act. The statute of limitations has expired with the lapse

② The Plaintiff’s instant case