1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part concerning the dismissal as set forth in the following 2.1. Thus, it cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The second part of the part which was used by the court

(a) by inserting subsection 1 as follows:

D. The Defendants, on October 16, 2004, shall be 10% B on September 16, 2004, 120,000,000 joint and several sureties who are the principal debtor liable for the payment of interest, and on October 31, 2004, 10% C on September 16, 2004 C C 30% on October 30, 2004, 30.

As indicated in the statement, each of the following loans obligations is separate obligations, and according to the contents of the loan certificate in this case, as described in No. 1, the Plaintiff lent 120 million won to Defendant B on October 16, 2004, with the due date for repayment set at 10 million won (hereinafter “instant loan”) 30% per month and 10% per month (hereinafter “the instant loan”).

(2) Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant B’s debt to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 120 million won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from October 17, 2014 to the date following the instant loan agreement, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 10 million won per annum as stipulated in the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”).

The loan certificate in this case states that "the purpose of the loan is to borrow the loan as a living loan" as a merchant, and the plaintiff is not a credit service provider in this case.