1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation as to this case is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for a partial dismissal as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(However, the part corresponding only to the co-defendants in the first instance trial). Nos. 9, 14, and 20 of the 9th page “Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining principal amount of KRW 200 million of the loan in this case and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from October 18, 2015 to September 6, 2016, which is the service date of a copy of the complaint in this case, from September 6, 2016, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment (the Plaintiff further sought payment of damages for delay from October 17, 2015, but the damages for delay due to nonperformance of the obligation to return the loan is recognized from the next day, and therefore the part of the Plaintiff’s damages for delay exceeding the above recognized scope

"The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 20 million won of the remaining principal of the loan of this case and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from October 18, 2015 to September 6, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from October 18, 2015 to September 6, 2016, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from

Furthermore, the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay from October 17, 2015. However, since damages for delay caused by nonperformance of monetary loan obligation is recognized from the day following the due date, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay exceeding the above recognized scope is without merit.

The plaintiff filed a claim for the principal of the loan and its delay damages. Although the plaintiff dismissed part of the claim for the delay damages incurred prior to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, the plaintiff's claim for the principal of the loan shall be accepted in entirety and the defendant'