1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendants jointly and severally against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor 14,950.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Treatment Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Treatment Capital”) entered into a contract to lend KRW 10,780,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) on August 19, 197, and the interest rate was 9% per annum for KRW 5,500,000 per annum for KRW 13.8%, 5,280,000 per annum for KRW 5,500,000, and the loan period was 3 years, and the delay interest rate was 24% per annum.

Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the instant loan.

B. On November 21, 2002, Daewoo Capital transferred the principal and interest of the instant loan to the Plaintiff, and at that time notified the Defendants of the assignment of the claim.

C. The sum of the principal and interest of the instant loan as of June 1, 2004 is KRW 14,950,540 (=the remaining principal and interest KRW 7,322,425 and damages for delay). D.

On August 28, 2012, the succeeding intervenor acquired the principal and interest of the instant loan from the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant A of the assignment of claims on October 8, 2012 by representing the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. (1) According to the determination as to the cause of the claim by the succeeding intervenor, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the succeeding intervenor 14,950,540 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the interest rate on the agreed damages for delay, from June 2, 2004 to the date of full payment.

(2) After the judgment of the first instance court of this case was rendered, the Plaintiff transferred the claim for the principal and interest of the instant loan to the succeeding intervenor.

The plaintiff's assertion that the principal and interest of the instant loan is creditor is without merit.

B. The Defendants asserted that the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim has expired.

According to the records and the purport of evidence No. 2 and the whole pleadings, the judgment of the Seoul District Court on the provisional attachment of the Defendant A’s wage claim with the claim for the instant loan on November 17, 1999 as the preserved claim.