1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000, among the costs, and KRW 18,000,000 from March 4, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including branch numbers), as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff was a person operating a lending company registered under the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter referred to as "three persons, such as C, etc.") on April 27, 201 and lent 6 million won each to three.5% of the interest rate, and the repayment date as of March 26, 2012. On the same day, the defendant provided a joint and several surety for the above loan obligations against three persons, such as C, within the limit of 20 million won each, with the interest rate of 18,810,000 won (6,000,000 won, interest rate of 10,000 won, interest rate of 10,000 won, interest rate of 20,000 won, and against the plaintiff by May 27, 2016.

According to the above facts, the defendant as a joint and several surety of three persons, such as C, applied for the payment order in this case on the day following the service of the original copy of the payment order in this case with respect to KRW 18,000,000 for each of the principal and the principal (principal KRW 6,000,000 x 3) among the principal and the principal of the loan obligation of three persons, as requested by the plaintiff, as a joint and several surety of C, etc., and as for the principal of KRW 18,00,000 for each of the principal, as requested by the plaintiff.

is obligated to pay interest calculated by the rate of 42% per annum, the agreed interest rate from March 4, 2016, which is apparent in the record.

(A) The Plaintiff is seeking interest payment of KRW 12,00,000, which exceeds the principal amount of KRW 18,000,000, and the remainder of KRW 12,000,000 is sought again as to the parties. However, the claim for interest payment against the parties to the agreement is not allowed as a claim for interest payment by welfare, and this part of the claim is without merit. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that it is difficult to repay due to the absence of status, but the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case within the scope of the above recognition.