1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall be jointly and severally and severally with the plaintiff KRW 20,752,349 and KRW 6,214,713.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 30, 1998, the Defendant entered into a contract for the transaction of self-reliance deposit loan (hereinafter “instant loan contract”) with the Korea Development Bank of Korea with the amount of loans of KRW 20,000,000 per annum, interest rate of KRW 17.5% per annum, and the transaction period of December 30, 1999.

Defendant B (Final Decision on March 13, 2014) of the first instance court (Final Decision on Performance Recommendation) guaranteed the Defendant’s debt under the instant loan agreement.

B. On June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the principal and interest claim under the instant loan agreement from the Korea Development Bank of Korea.

On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff represented the Korea Development Bank and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims by content-certified mail.

C. The principal and interest as of May 31, 2013 based on the instant loan agreement is KRW 20,135,816 (= Principal KRW 6,214,173; KRW 13,921,103).

The above principal is 616,533 won if the damages for delay additionally incurred from the above principal until December 29, 2013 from the above reference date is calculated as damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum as stipulated in Article 11 of the Rules on Management of Entrusted Bonds of the Plaintiff’s Credit Recovery Fund.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 20,752,349 won (=20,135,816 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from December 30, 2013 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with the conclusion different from this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by ordering the defendant to pay the above money.