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. In fact, on January 12, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,00,000 to Doi General Construction Co., Ltd. (mutual name after the alteration: New DD Construction Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) and C the repayment period on April 12, 2012, setting the rate of KRW 2.5% per month. The fact that the Defendant and D guaranteed the principal out of the above loans to the Plaintiff on the same day is either disputed between the parties, or that the Defendant and D guaranteed the principal out of the above loans to the Plaintiff on the same day may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the items in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 3.

2. The act of the merchant in the judgment on the cause of the claim is presumed to be an act conducted for his/her business (Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act). The act performed by the merchant for his/her business purpose is deemed a commercial activity (Article 47(1) of the Commercial Act). If several persons assume the obligation for one or all of them as a result of an act that constitutes a commercial activity, they are jointly and severally liable (Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act). If the principal obligation is based on a commercial activity, the principal obligor

(Article 57 (2) of the Commercial Act). According to the above facts, the non-party company's act constitutes a commercial activity for business purposes, where the non-party company becomes an ex officio merchant (Article 4 of the Commercial Act) or constructive merchant (Article 5 (2) of the Commercial Act) and bears obligations.

As such, the defendant, one of the guarantors of the above debt, is jointly and severally liable with the principal debtor to pay damages for delay from the following day of April 12, 2012, when the principal and the debt are due.

In this regard, the defendant has guaranteed only the principal, but the delay compensation is not liable to pay the principal. However, even if the principal is guaranteed only as a result of delay in the payment of the principal, the delay compensation is not paid even after the due date has arrived, as long as the principal has not been paid.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is rejected.