1. According to the amendment of the purport of the claim in the trial, the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant is against the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 4, 2016, the Plaintiff, as a credit service provider, lent KRW 7,000,000 to C at an interest rate of 27.9% per annum, and at the expiration date of the contract, on July 3, 2021.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

From July 4, 2016 to July 3, 2021, the Defendant prepared a joint and several surety contract in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant joint and several surety contract”) that sets the guarantee period of C from July 4, 2016 to July 3, 2021, the guaranteed amount of KRW 7,00,000, the maximum guaranteed amount of KRW 9,100,000 per annum, and the overdue interest rate of KRW 27.9%, and sent it to the Plaintiff by facsimile. A copy of the Defendant’s resident registration certificate, a copy of the health insurance qualification certificate, and a copy of the health and long-term care insurance

C. After receiving the instant joint and several guarantee contract from the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s employee confirmed the Defendant’s name and resident registration number by telephone to the Defendant, and obtained consent to the provision of personal information, etc., and was provided with information from the Defendant regarding the month of entry, company address, wage account, amount of benefits, home address, etc., and explained the details of the instant loan contract and the instant joint and several guarantee contract, and confirmed whether the Defendant’s intent and the Defendant signed on the said joint and several guarantee contract.

The Plaintiff remitted 7,000,000 won to C. D.

C was unable to repay the principal and interest of the instant loan, and thus, the interest of the instant loan was lost, and as of May 14, 2018, the principal and interest of the instant loan were totaling KRW 9,281,796, and the principal amount was KRW 6,583,651.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since a joint and several surety contract of this case was effective, the defendant is liable to perform the guaranteed obligation of KRW 6,583,651 as a joint and several surety to the plaintiff as a joint and several surety.

(b) preliminary.