1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant A.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 25, 1998, Defendant A borrowed KRW 10,000,00 per annum from the Hysan Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter “Seoul AFF”), 24% per annum, due date for arrears, and 25 July 25, 2001 (hereinafter “instant 1 loan”), and Defendant A guaranteed Defendant A’s obligation based on the instant 1 loan.

B. Defendant A received a loan on July 25, 1998 at interest rate of KRW 11,00,000 per annum, interest rate of KRW 17% per annum, interest rate of arrears rate of KRW 24% per annum, and due date of payment on July 25, 2001.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant two loans,” and in total, the instant one loan and the instant two loan are “the instant loan”).

On June 28, 2013, Hansan transferred the claim for the instant loan to the Plaintiff. On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff was delegated with the power to notify the assignment of claims and notified the Defendant A of the assignment of claims.

As of December 5, 2013, the principal and interest of the instant loan claim KRW 20,91,351 (i.e., the loan balance of KRW 10,00,000 + overdue interest of KRW 10,91,351). The principal and interest of the instant loan claim as of December 5, 2013 is KRW 14,564,90 (i.e., the loan balance of KRW 7,532,800 + overdue interest of KRW 7,032,100).

E. The overdue interest rate determined by the Plaintiff within the scope of the overdue interest rate on the purchased bonds is 17% per annum.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 2-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant A rendered ex officio as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against the defendant has res judicata effect, where the party against whom the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant A has been rendered files a lawsuit for the same claim against the other party to the lawsuit again against the other party to the lawsuit, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights. However, in exceptional cases, where it is obvious that the ten-year extinctive prescription period of the claim based on

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). A.