1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

If Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim added the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants for the payment of loans with Seoul Central District Court 2007Da227317, Oct. 10, 2007; "the defendant jointly and severally pays to the plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 27,134,616 won and 25% per annum from August 21, 1997 to the date of full payment," and it can be acknowledged that the judgment became final and conclusive on October 31 of the same year.

Therefore, the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff the acquisition amount of KRW 27,134,616 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from August 21, 1997 to the date of full payment, as in the previous judgment in which res judicata effect exists to the Plaintiff who filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff’s employee promised to exempt the interest claim if the Plaintiff’s employee continues to have no property subject to compulsory execution for about five years in 194 as the interest remaining after the repayment of principal.

The waiver or exemption of a claim does not necessarily necessarily require an express declaration of intent, and it should be recognized in cases where it can be deemed the waiver or exemption of a claim by a creditor’s act or declaration of intent. However, for such recognition, the application of the waiver or exemption of a claim shall be determined by strict interpretation of an obligee’s act or declaration of intent in accordance with the contents of the pertinent legal relationship. A person who claims waiver or exemption of a claim shall bear the burden of proof therefor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da206328 Decided August 24, 2017). Although the Plaintiff denied the fact that the Defendants exempted the Defendants from their obligations in this case, the Defendants merely repeat the unilateral assertion that they received the Defendants’ obligations.