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. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) On April 14, 2008, the Plaintiff extended a loan to B on April 14, 2010, with a maturity of KRW 20 million on April 14, 2010, interest rate of KRW 4.3% per annum (Provided, That it may be changed at the time of revision of the management plan to the interest rate under the National Housing Management Plan for the Ministry of Construction and Transportation), and delayed interest rate of KRW 9% per annum. On the same day, the Defendant guaranteed B’s above loan obligation to the Plaintiff up to KRW 26 million. 2) The Defendant lost the benefit due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the above loan due after the maturity of the payment period. As of April 18, 2014, the total amount of the loan interest in arrears as of April 18, 2014 is the principal amount of KRW 27,644,816 (i.e., interest rate of KRW 200,000 or KRW 7,6484,16).

3) Meanwhile, the interest rate on delay applied by the Plaintiff to the above loan after February 17, 2011 is 8.5% per annum. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

B. According to the above facts of determination, B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest of KRW 27,64,816 in total and KRW 20,000,00 of the loan principal after April 19, 2014. The Defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay the Plaintiff interest within the limit of KRW 26,00,000,00, out of the guarantee limit.

2. Determination on the defense, etc.

A. The summary of the argument 1) At the time of the above loan, the Defendant did not have the qualification to guarantee the obligation of others due to low credit rating, and the Plaintiff also explained that it is difficult to grant the loan due to the credit rating of the Defendant at the time of preparation of the loan transaction agreement of this case (No. 1-1). Accordingly, the Defendant signed the application for joint and several guarantee (No. 4) and the letter of guarantee (No. 1-2) with knowledge that the Defendant’s signature seal is entirely ineffective. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s execution of the above loan to B only by changing the loan location without notifying or obtaining the Defendant’s consent, which constitutes gross negligence.

3. Ultimately, ..