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

Defendant B and Defendant Counterclaim Co., Ltd. shall be jointly and severally.

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2, 2011, Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C Co., Ltd”) borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the Plaintiff as of December 15, 201 due date, and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation.

B. On the same day, the Plaintiff paid KRW 19,200,000 to the Defendant Company after deducting KRW 800,000 as interest rate for the above loans of KRW 20,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

A. According to Article 2(1), (3), and (4) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same) and Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25376, Jun. 11, 2014); the maximum interest rate under a contract for monetary lending is 30% per annum; the contractual interest exceeding the above maximum interest rate is null and void; where a debtor voluntarily pays interest exceeding the above maximum interest rate, the amount equivalent to the interest paid shall be appropriated for the principal; where a debtor deducts the advance interest from the advance interest, the excess portion shall be deemed appropriated for the principal if the amount of the deduction exceeds the amount calculated according to the above maximum interest rate (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da5158, Oct. 11, 2012).

In this case, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 through 3, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant Company on December 2, 2011 and deducted KRW 800,000 as the interest rate for 14 days (from December 2, 2011 to December 15, 2011, the date of loan). The deduction of the aforementioned prior interest and the cost of establishing a collateral security shall be deemed as the interest and the interest deduction pursuant to Articles 3 and 4(1) of the Interest Limitation Act.

Pursuant to the above legal doctrine, the Plaintiff actually did.