1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 18% per annum from December 2, 2014 to the date of full payment.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the defendant on August 2, 2012 by setting the due date of repayment to the defendant on August 3, 2013 and interest rate to 24%, Eul guaranteed the defendant's obligation to return the above loan to the plaintiff, the fact that Eul agreed to reduce the interest from August 2, 2013 to 18% per annum, and the fact that interest has not been paid from December 2, 2014 can be acknowledged. The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the interest of KRW 10 million and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from December 2, 2014 to the date of full payment.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that C has taken over the obligation to return the loan as a discharge. The overlapping of the obligation to assume the obligation is a matter of interpretation of the intention of the parties indicated in the contract to assume the obligation, and whether the obligation to assume the obligation is exempted or not, or if the overlapping of the obligation is not clear, it shall be deemed that the obligation to assume the obligation is taken over repeatedly, and the burden of proof on the existence of special circumstances to be considered as the obligation to assume the obligation to assume the obligation to bear the obligation to bear the obligation to bear the obligation to bear the obligation to bear the obligation to bear the obligation to bear the obligation to bear the obligation to bear the obligation to bear the obligation to bear the obligation to bear the obligation to bear the obligation to bear the obligation, and it is difficult to

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.