1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 5, the plaintiff ordered construction of a building on the land located D at Jeju-si around October 8, 2010. Around that time, the plaintiff ordered construction work to the defendant. Around that time, the plaintiff provided the above construction work to the defendant. Around June 1, 2011, the time when the construction work is completed, the plaintiff extended KRW 18,00,00 to the co-defendant C (the supervisor at the above construction site) of the first instance court (the supervisor at the above construction site) on June 30, 2012. After the expiration of the time limit for payment, the plaintiff leased the above loan on the condition that interest shall be paid at a rate of 20% per annum. The defendant signed and sealed the above loan No. 3 as the guarantor, the plaintiff paid the above construction work to the defendant on June 2, 2011, and the fact that the facility No. 307.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is jointly and severally obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loans of KRW 18,00,000 and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from July 1, 2012 following the due date for payment pursuant to the above agreement.

(A) On September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with the Defendant and C as a co-defendant. On September 22, 2014, the court of first instance rendered a decision of performance recommendation to the Defendant and C on September 22, 2014, but C did not object to the said decision of performance recommendation, and became final and conclusive as it is). The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s claim regarding the Defendant’s assertion did not lend the said money to C and the Defendant, but rather paid value-added tax for the said construction cost to the Defendant that had been constructed by

However, such assertion is not only inconsistent with the entries in the above loan certificate signed and sealed by the Defendant, but also is a date following the date on which the Plaintiff deposited KRW 12,00,000 to the Defendant as of June 2, 201, and there is no reason for the Plaintiff to pay value-added tax to the Defendant on the above date.