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 parties' assertion

A. On April 4, 1987, the Plaintiff lent to Defendant B the amount of KRW 1 million for Defendant C’s school expenses, and KRW 24% per annum. Defendant B paid only one million out of the interest on the above loan on February 17, 2009, and did not pay the principal and the remaining interest. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the said loan to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendants 1) Although Defendant B borrowed KRW 1 million from the Plaintiff on April 4, 1987, Defendant B did not have any interest agreement, the extinctive prescription was expired, and the payment was made on February 17, 2009 with full payment of KRW 1 million.2) Defendant C did not have joint and several liability for the said loan, and is not responsible for the repayment thereof.

2. Determination

A. The fact that Defendant B borrowed KRW 1 million from the Plaintiff on April 4, 1987 on the claim against Defendant C (hereinafter “instant loan”) did not dispute between the parties, but Defendant C guaranteed the instant loan jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant C.

There is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff agreed to repay the instant loan, and the place of use of the instant loan is difficult to view that Defendant C is liable for the repayment of the instant loan solely on the grounds that Defendant C’s school expense or other claims are asserted by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. First of all, as to the claim against Defendant B, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on interest rate of 24% per annum on the instant loan solely with respect to whether there was an interest agreement on the instant loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Furthermore, there is no dispute between the parties as to Defendant B’s defense of repayment, and the fact that Defendant B paid KRW 1 million on February 17, 2009.