1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed with the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and 5% per annum from January 21, 2010 to April 16, 2019.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the facts of recognition and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff lent KRW 50,000,000 to defendant B on January 21, 2010 as interest rate of KRW 5% per annum and January 21, 2014, and Defendant C and defendant D jointly guaranteed the obligation to return loans owed by defendant B to the plaintiff.

Meanwhile, from January 21, 2010 to January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff sought payment of interest of KRW 10,000,000, which occurred according to the annual rate of 5% from January 21, 2014 to the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, at the annual rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the date of service of the original copy of the instant payment order, and from the next day, the Plaintiff sought payment of interest at the statutory rate of 5% per annum from the date of service of the original copy of the instant payment order. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the welfare agreement, not the original copy of the loan,

In other words, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for interest of KRW 10,000,00, which was derived from the agreed rate from January 21, 2010 to January 20, 2014, which is not the original of the instant loan, is without merit.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed interest rate of 50,000,000 per annum from January 21, 2010, which is the date of lending to the Plaintiff, to the extent that the Defendants dispute over the existence or scope of the instant obligation from January 21, 2010 to April 16, 2019, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is partially accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.