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. Basic facts

A. B (A) on November 25, 2010, 2010, KRW 28,100,000 per annum from Solomon Savings Bank (hereinafter “ Solomon Savings Bank”), 38.5% per annum, delay damages rate, 38.5% per annum, 36 months during the lending period, 36 months in equal installments per month in repayment method, and 36 months in repayment method (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations against Solomon Savings Bank.

B. B later, due to the delinquency in the repayment of the above loan obligation, lost the benefit of time, and on March 24, 2017, the total of KRW 5,110,760 as principal and interest KRW 8,00,08,310 as of March 24, 2017, the principal and interest of KRW 13,119,070 remains unpaid.

C. Meanwhile, on April 30, 2013, the Solomon Savings Bank was bankrupted and appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy by the Plaintiff.

(Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap46). [Reasons for Recognition] A, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant, a joint and several surety of the instant loan, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 27.9% per annum, which the Plaintiff seeks, within the limit of the agreed interest rate of 27.9% from March 24, 2017, which is the day following the above calculation base date, to the day of full payment, with respect to the outstanding principal and interest of KRW 13,19,070 and principal of KRW 5,110,7

In this regard, the defendant asserts that he was exempted from the payment of the loan of this case even if he fully or partially repaid the loan of this case with the disposal price by transferring the ownership of the above vehicle to the bank side because it is difficult to repay the loan after obtaining the loan of this case as security.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 3, the plaintiff, on February 27, 2013, disposed of a motor vehicle, which is a security for the loan claim of this case, and appropriated the proceeds from the sale to repay the loan of this case, and the remaining balance.