1. Of the judgments of the first instance court, the part against the defendant in the judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is co-defendant B of the first instance trial.

Basic Facts

On May 28, 2002, Lone Card Co., Ltd. lent 6.3 million won to Co-Defendant B, Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial on the pretext of a large exchange rate of 36 months, interest per annum, 19% per annum, and 24% per annum.

On September 30, 2003, Lone Card Co., Ltd. transferred the above substitute loan claim to the Plaintiff and notified the transfer of the above loan claim to B at that time. On May 13, 2005, the first instance court rendered a judgment, the Plaintiff transferred the above substitute loan claim to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor and notified the fact of the transfer of the above substitute loan claim to B on June 16, 2005.

As of October 1, 2004, the claim for the repayment loan remains in total of KRW 6,112,200, overdue interest of KRW 2,373,219, and KRW 8,485,419.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the provisional number), the parties' assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor's assertion that the defendant filed a claim for the payment of the total principal and interest 8,485,419 won remaining after the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to repay loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from October 2, 2004, which is the following day of the above basic date to the date of complete payment, and the defendant did not jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to repay loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan

In full view of the purport of the whole arguments in the statement of No. 3-1 through No. 5 of the board Gap, it is reasonable to view that the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of substitution loan of the defendant, since the defendant affixed his seal to the application for substitution loan for the same student B at the time of the loan of substitution loan, and submitted the certificate of personal seal impression and identification card issued by the defendant himself.

Therefore, the defendant who is a joint and several surety is jointly and severally liable with the principal obligor B to pay the remainder of the substitute loan to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor who is the final transferee of the substitute loan claim.

However, the plaintiff claimed damages for delay at 25% per annum, but the fact that the agreed damages for delay is 24% per annum is recognized as above, so the defendant shall be jointly and severally with B.