1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 3, 2009, Defendant C borrowed 5.7 million won from the Plaintiff on June 3, 2009, 4% of interest per month and due date on September 2, 2009.

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant C’s debt owed to the Plaintiff.

B. Around June 3, 2010, Defendant C repaid the Plaintiff the principal of the borrowed amount of KRW 2 million and paid interest or delay damages until February 26, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the principal amount of KRW 3700,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 48% per annum from February 27, 2016 to the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, as they seek by the Plaintiff, and at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. 1) The Defendants asserted that since they did not agree on the interest rate on delay damages under the loan contract of this case, 4% per annum shall not be applied to delay damages after the due date, and 6% per annum, commercial interest rate, shall be applied. 2) In addition, in the loan for consumption where no interest agreement exists after the due date, it shall be deemed that the initial agreed interest was paid after the due date unless there is a special declaration of intention (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2649, Sept. 8, 1981). Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a separate agreement on the interest after the due date between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, it is reasonable to deem that the loan agreement of this case applies even after the due date.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

B. 1 Next, the Defendants asserted the reduction of the liquidated damages.