1. The part against the defendant B in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

2...

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On May 27, 199, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 10 million to Defendant B by setting the maturity of KRW 15 million on September 30, 1999 and monthly interest rate of KRW 15%. On the same day, the fact that Defendant C guaranteed the above loan obligation to Defendant B to the Plaintiff by Defendant C is not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 1.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 10 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum for the Plaintiff within the agreed interest rate from October 1, 1999 to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, Defendant B asserted that he borrowed KRW 10 million from Defendant C only and did not borrow money from the Plaintiff. However, considering the overall purport of the pleadings as to the statement in Party B’s No. 1, Defendant C asserted that Defendant B borrowed the instant money from the Plaintiff under his joint and several guarantee, Defendant B asserted that Defendant B borrowed the instant money from the Plaintiff, Defendant B’s loan certificate as of May 27, 1999 also includes the loan certificate of KRW 10 million as of May 27, 199, and Defendant C is written as Defendant B’s joint and several surety. In light of this, the fact that Defendant B borrowed the instant money from the Plaintiff can be acknowledged.

Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.

2. Determination as to Defendant B’s defense

A. Defendant B asserted that Defendant C performed the obligation of the borrowed amount by delivering KRW 10 million to Defendant C around September 1999. Thus, Defendant C’s delivery of KRW 10 million to Defendant C for the repayment of the borrowed amount on or around September 1999 is recognized by Defendant C, but there is no evidence to prove that Defendant C performed the said obligation of the borrowed amount at KRW 10 million. Rather, Defendant C would settle the settlement amount for the said business partnership with the Plaintiff.