1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff set 16,90,000 won to Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial on October 25, 2001 (hereinafter "C") as due date for repayment and lent it to the Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial on November 25, 2001, and on the same day, the defendant can recognize the fact that he/she guaranteed the above loan obligations against the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the principal KRW 16,900,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 25, 2006 to the date of full payment.

However, according to the Plaintiff’s preparatory brief dated February 15, 2016, the Plaintiff is a person who received a total of KRW 5,245,000 from the Defendant during the period from September 4, 2002 to June 26, 2006. However, the Plaintiff is not included in the subject of adjudication on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff claimed only the principal of the lease and the damages for delay.

2. As to the Defendant’s defense, the Defendant asserted that the Co-Defendant D of the first instance trial (hereinafter “D”) repaid KRW 17,460,000 in total over 35 times from October 12, 201 to September 23, 2013 after the judgment of the first instance was rendered.

The effect of the repayment due to the provisional execution is not conclusive, but is only derived from the declaration of the provisional execution or the cancellation of the judgment on the merits in the appellate court. Therefore, according to the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiffs were paid the amount of the provisional execution.

Even if the appellate court did not take this into account, it should determine the legitimacy of the pertinent claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da560, Jul. 6, 2000). The performance of such a claim is either delivered by compulsory execution by the judgment of the provisional execution sentence or voluntarily delivered to the claim of the judgment of the provisional execution sentence.