1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 9,941,431 as well as the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability against the Defendants from November 4, 2013.

1. The facts that Defendant B borrowed KRW 10,00,000 from the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff until January 2002 as to the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendants made and made a promissory note of KRW 10,000 per annum to the Plaintiff on December 8, 2008, stating that the Defendants paid KRW 10,000 per annum to the Plaintiff on January 30, 200, KRW 300,000 per month, and KRW 30,000 on February 11, 2009, and KRW 20,000 per annum to the Plaintiff on April 27, 2009.

According to the facts found above, the Defendants agreed to pay interest (i.e., 300,000 won/ 10,000 won/ 100,000 won/ 3% per month on the 10th day of each month between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on December 8, 2008 (hereinafter “instant lending agreement”).

Of the instant loan agreement, the part exceeding 30% per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, is null and void. Since the amount repaid by the Defendants, in accordance with the order of statutory appropriation for payment of the principal and interest under the instant loan agreement, is appropriated as follows, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages at the rate of 24% per annum, which the Plaintiff seeks from April 28, 2009 to the date of repayment, as to the principal amount of KRW 9,941,431, and interest accrued up to that time, KRW 412,827,941,431, and interest accrued up to that

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that the instant lending agreement was terminated by the short-term extinctive prescription under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, but as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem the instant lending agreement as an open contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants in determining the amount of the existing loan claim, and the Plaintiff sought monetary payment as the cause of the claim for the instant lending agreement.