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. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4 and the entire pleadings.

(1) On July 13, 2012, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 4,000,000 to B, 39% per annum of interest and overdue interest rate, and the loan period was 60 months from the date of concluding the contract.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). On the same day, the Plaintiff concluded a joint and several guarantee contract with the Defendant regarding the instant loan obligations.

(2) B only until April 17, 2013, paid the interest on the instant loan obligation and lost the benefit of time.

On July 15, 2013, the details of the loan obligation of this case as of July 15, 2013 are 389,633 won in total, including the remaining principal, 99,946 won, interest and overdue interest, etc.

B. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the agreement of 39% per annum from March 6, 2014, which is the day following the day on which the original copy of the payment order of this case was served to the day of full payment with respect to KRW 3,99,579 (=389,633, such as interest and overdue interest on the remaining principal of the loan of this case) and the above KRW 3,99,946 (3), i.e., remaining principal of the loan of this case).

2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the principal debtor B of the loan obligation of this case repaid the loan obligation of this case in the course of individual rehabilitation procedures, and the defendant's joint and several liability also extinguished by the amount of the repayment.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that B performs the instant loan obligations through individual rehabilitation procedures.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.