1. Defendant C’s KRW 66,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from July 1, 2014 to January 15, 2015.

1. According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, No. 2-1, and No. 2-2 of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C, it is recognized that the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 110,000,00 to Defendant C and to be paid KRW 11,00,00 each year for ten years from 208 to 10 years. Defendant C is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 66,00,000 per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which became due at the time of the closing of argument to the Plaintiff, as sought by the Plaintiff after the lease date, and as the Plaintiff seeks, it is reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation to pay for delay from July 1, 2014 to January 15, 2015, which is the date of the instant judgment, and the next day to the day of full payment until the day of full payment.

In addition, as long as the Defendant did not pay the loan that has already come due as above, it is necessary for the Plaintiff to claim in advance the loan that the due date has not yet arrived. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 1,00,000 won upon arrival of December 31, 2014 according to the above installment repayment agreement, 11,000,000 won upon arrival of December 31, 2015, 11,000,000 won upon arrival of December 31, 2016, and 11,00,000,000 won upon arrival of December 31, 2017, and 11,00,000,000 won upon arrival of December 31, 2017, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act under the above installment repayment agreement.

In regard to this, the plaintiff lent money to the defendants jointly and severally liable, and even though the defendant C owned an apartment under the name of the defendant C, the defendant C, the spouse, but was deferred due to the repayment. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant B is seeking the revocation of the declaration of the deferment of repayment of principal and the repayment of the total amount of the loan by the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case. However, as shown below, the defendant B cannot be deemed the debtor of the loan of this case and the circumstance cited by