1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 13, 2003, the Plaintiff agreed to grant a loan of KRW 30 million to Defendant B on June 12, 2004 (hereinafter “the instant loan agreement”); Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant B’s above loan obligation; and Defendant C agreed to set up a collateral security right on the pertinent land and building owned by Defendant C, Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-do, and the mortgage right on the said land.

B. Under the instant loan agreement, the Plaintiff paid to Defendant B a total of KRW 20 million on June 16, 2003, and KRW 10 million on July 31, 2003, and did not lend the remainder KRW 10 million.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). C.

Defendant B paid to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 2 million on January 1, 2007, KRW 500,000 on December 31, 2008, KRW 1 million on February 4, 2009, KRW 1 million on June 17, 2009, KRW 250,000 on December 31, 2009, KRW 250,000 on January 15, 2010, KRW 2 million on January 2, 2011, KRW 200,000 on May 30, 201, KRW 300,000 on December 20, 201, KRW 60,000 on March 18, 2013, KRW 60,0063 million on December 16, 201.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant amount”) / satisfyed / satisfy / satisfy / satch 1, 2, 3, and 1, 2, and 3 of Gap (including satisfy number), each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and the key issue of this case asserted that the interest at the time of the loan agreement of this case was interest-free, but the interest at the time of the loan of this case was paid 20% interest per annum after the due date and that the repayment of this case was first appropriated

On the other hand, the defendants asserted that since the interest and delay damages at the time of the loan agreement of this case were not paid in full, the repayment of this case should be appropriated for the principal and the loan of this case was fully repaid.

In addition, the Defendants asserts that even if there was a interest agreement, the interest claim was terminated by the short-term extinctive prescription of three years.

Ultimately, 20% per annum in the loan agreement of this case.