1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,360,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 30% per annum from October 22, 2007 to September 30, 2015.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff lent 40,000,00 won interest rate of 30% per annum from October 21, 2007, and the defendant guaranteed the repayment of Eul's obligations. Since C repaid 4,640,00 won out of the borrowed money to the plaintiff on May 20, 2009, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the borrowed money of 35,360,000 won (=4,640,000 won - 4,640,000 won) to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, as the plaintiff seeks, 30% per annum from October 22, 2007 to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the following day to September 30, 2015.

Since the defendant's defense to the effect that the above loan claim has expired by prescription, the fact that the period for payment of the above loan claim was October 21, 2007 is as seen earlier, and it is apparent that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was filed on May 3, 2018 after the lapse of 10 years from the lawsuit of this case. However, as seen earlier, the fact that C, the principal debtor of this case, repaid to the plaintiff on May 20, 2009 KRW 4,640,000 out of the above loan amount, as seen earlier, the interruption of prescription against the principal debtor is effective against the guarantor. Thus, the above statute of limitations was interrupted.

Therefore, the defendant's above defense is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.