1. The Defendant’s KRW 49 million and KRW 25 million among the Plaintiff’s KRW 49 million and the Plaintiff’s KRW 25 million from August 1, 2015 and KRW 24 million.

1. Where there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 1-1, and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3-2, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 25 million to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) prior to the change of the Plaintiff’s trade name as to January 30, 2015 as the due date for repayment on July 31, 2015, and KRW 24 million as of March 6, 2015, respectively, with the due date set as of September 6, 2015, and the Defendant guaranteed against the Plaintiff within the scope of the principal among the above loan obligations against the Plaintiff of the Nonparty Company.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 49 million (=25 million) and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary.

Furthermore, with respect to the Defendant, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 25 million from January 30, 2015, which is the lending date, and KRW 24 million from March 6, 2015, to the date on which the original copy of each payment order was served to the Defendant, 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date on which the original copy of each payment order was served to the Defendant.

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant guaranteed within the scope of principal. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of interest during the period from January 30, 2015 and March 6, 2015, which is the date of the loan, to July 31, 2015 and September 6, 2015, is without merit.

In addition, since the guaranteed obligation is separate from the principal obligation, damages for delay of the guaranteed obligation itself should be borne separately from the guarantee limit, and if there is no special agreement on the interest rate on delay of the guaranteed obligation, the interest rate on delay of the guaranteed obligation under the Commercial Act and the Civil Act according to the nature of the transaction, and the agreed interest rate on the principal obligation is naturally applicable.