1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 30, 2004, under Defendant B’s joint and several sureties, the Bank held that Defendant A had an interest rate of KRW 8.7 million per annum (payment on the card settlement date), 24% per annum (payment on interest on the card settlement date), and 36 months principal principal installment repayment (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. When the Defendants delayed the payment of the principal and interest of the instant loan, the Bank classified the instant loan loan as a special bond, and on December 9, 2009, notified Defendant A of the said transfer on May 4, 2010.

C. Meanwhile, the principal and interest of the instant loan, which was repaid as of August 29, 2014, is KRW 17,613,516 (the principal and interest thereof KRW 6,199,100), and the overdue interest rate determined by the Plaintiff is 17% per annum.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 [this case's loan transaction agreement (Evidence No. 6] of this case's loan transaction agreement was signed and sealed by the defendants, but in light of the fact that the defendants' resident registration certificates are attached to the loan transaction agreement of this case's loan transaction agreement of this case's loan of this case's loan transaction agreement of this case's loan of this case's loan of this case

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the principal and interest of the instant loan KRW 17,613,516 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from August 30, 2014 to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that the statute of limitations has expired.

In light of the above facts, the repayment period of the instant loan loan was March 30, 2007, which was 36 months after the date of the instant loan loan, and the instant lawsuit was filed on August 31, 2014, which was far more than five years after the expiration of the statute of limitations. As such, the instant loan claim expired prior to the instant lawsuit, since it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on August 31, 2014.

The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.