1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendants shall jointly and severally act on May 12, 2004 with respect to the Plaintiff KRW 15,000,000 and its amount.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On May 11, 2004, the Plaintiff lent KRW 15 million to Defendant C as “the repayment period on December 11, 2004, interest rate of KRW 4%,” and Defendant B guaranteed Defendant C’s debt.

With respect to the above loan obligations, the Plaintiff and the Defendants drafted a notarial deed on the same day ( May 11, 2004).

(No. 327, 2004). (b) No. 327, 2004.

However, since the Defendants did not pay not only the principal but also the principal of the above loan so far, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 15 million and the interest or delay damages.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers) and the overall purport of the pleading, the plaintiff's assertion can be admitted as it is.

(The defendant submitted a formal objection against the plaintiff's request for payment order at the first instance court, and did not specifically address the plaintiff's assertion. In the first instance court, ① defendant B did not answer despite being served with the plaintiff's petition of appeal, brief and court date notice, ② defendant C was made by service by public notice.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest rate of KRW 15 million and the interest rate of KRW 48% per annum under the agreement from the following day ( May 12, 2004) to June 29, 2007, and each payment order from the following day to the date of service (Defendant B: February 15, 2015; Defendant C: May 7, 2015) to the date of payment of interest limit Act, 30% per annum within the scope of the interest limit Act, and 20% per annum within the limit of the agreed interest rate of the Plaintiff from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, and it is ordered to cancel it and order the defendants to pay the above money.