1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff loaned to Defendant B and C a total of KRW 65 million, including KRW 20 million on September 1, 2009, KRW 10 million on December 28, 2009, KRW 20 million on April 27, 2010, KRW 65 million on April 8, 2012, and KRW 65 million on April 8, 2012 (hereinafter “instant loan”), and Defendant D, who is children of Defendant B and C, guaranteed the instant loan on May 27, 2013, without dispute between the parties, or by adding the purport of the entire pleadings as stipulated in subparagraphs 1 and 2. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

The defendant B, C, and A’s No. 1-2 through 4 (each loan certificate) are debtors respectively, but the defendant C, through a preparatory document dated December 5, 2013, led to the confession that the loan of this case was borrowed from the plaintiff.

On the other hand, Defendant B and C are liable as the principal obligor for the total amount of KRW 65 million, and as seen below, Defendant D confirmed the amount of debt in the presence of Defendant B and prepared a letter of guarantee for loan (Evidence A2) for KRW 65 million. In light of the fact that the Defendants’ obligations related to the instant loan are for the same benefit and the relationship between the Defendants, the Defendants’ obligations against the said KRW 65 million are jointly and severally liable.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff agreed to exempt the interest agreed upon with respect to the instant loan from the condition that the loan amount shall be KRW 24 million per annum, and the remainder of KRW 50,000,000,000 per month shall be paid first by Defendant D at the time when the loan guarantee certificate (Evidence 2) was drawn up, and the said agreement shall be paid in installments each month. However, the agreement on exemption from interest was null and void due to the Defendants’ failure to implement the said condition.