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. Basic facts

A. On August 22, 2008, Co-Defendant A of the first instance trial took out a loan of KRW 245,000,000 from the Savings Bank (hereinafter “In the instant loan transaction agreement”) (hereinafter “the instant loan transaction agreement”); and on the same day, Defendant B guaranteed A’s above loan obligation up to KRW 318,50,000.

B. On June 24, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired all loans, etc. from the non-party bank against A and the Defendant pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Financial Institutions and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation, and the non-party bank notified both A and the Defendant of the assignment of claims

C. Under the loan transaction agreement in this case, the agreed interest rate for delay under the agreement between the Plaintiff and the non-party bank is 21% per annum, and the Defendant’s remaining loans of KRW 203,437,855 on April 25, 201 (i.e., 245,000,000 - 203,437,855) is 109,571,964 won as of September 24, 2014.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4 (if there is an additional number, including it), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated by the agreement of 21% per annum from September 25, 2014 to the date of full payment, as to KRW 152,126,789 (=41,562,145 + 109,571,964) of the principal and interest of loans within the limit of KRW 318,50,000,000, the guarantee limit of which is 318,50,000 (i.e., 41,562,145 + 109,571,96

B. As to the above, the defendant asserted that A, who is her husband, took her husband to a bank and gave a provisional guarantee. However, the defendant's assertion alone is difficult to recognize that the defendant's probation guarantee agreement was caused by duress, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently, and the above argument by the defendant is without

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is accepted.