1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from November 26, 2014 to August 12, 2015, and the following.

1.The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective descriptions of evidence A Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings:

On September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff leased KRW 45 million to MelC Services Co., Ltd. as of October 2, 2014, setting the due date for reimbursement of KRW 45 million.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b) The instant loan

On October 7, 2014, the Defendant agreed that the repayment period for the above loan debt will be extended on November 25, 2014, while the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan debt.

C. As of the closing date of the instant pleading, the instant loan obligation was repaid in KRW 8 million out of the total amount.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant, as a joint and several surety for the instant loan, is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 37 million won per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from November 26, 2014, which is the date following the payment date, to August 12, 2015, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute over the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation, as a joint and several surety for the instant loan, and at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the date of full payment.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from November 25, 2014. However, the fact that the repayment period of the instant loan claim was November 25, 2014 is the same as seen earlier, and thus, the claim for this part of the claim is groundless.

B. The defendant asserts that the defendant was null and void as it constitutes an unfair legal act as stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act, since the defendant took advantage of the circumstances that the plaintiff knew of the difficulty of the plaintiff, such as LMC services and demanding interest of 10% per month, with the knowledge of the fact that the plaintiff was difficult to do so. However, the defendant did not submit any evidence to prove the argument (or did not appear at all on the date of pleading) and did not appear at all on the date of pleading.