1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The text of the judgment of the court of first instance is set forth.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 8, 2010, the Defendant, under the joint and several guarantee of Codefendant B of the first instance trial (hereinafter “B”), set KRW 33,50,000 from the Plaintiff at 9.4% per annum and interest rate of KRW 24% per annum, and was granted a loan under the condition that the principal and interest shall be repaid in equal installments on the 14th day of each month from February 14, 2010 to 60 months, and agreed to lose the benefit of time when the payment of the installment was delayed twice consecutively.

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). (b)

However, the Defendant paid only the installment repayment by January 14, 2014 to the Plaintiff and did not pay the installment repayment from February 2014, and around that time, the loan principal is equivalent to KRW 8,009,810.

[Reasons for Recognition] The items of evidence No. 1 to No. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 9.4% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate per annum from January 15, 2014, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff from January 15, 2014 to May 22, 2014, and at the rate of 24% per annum, the agreed interest rate per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s assertion ① concluded the instant loan agreement by falling under the end of son-do’s false end, and thus, the said loan agreement must be revoked.

② The Defendant had the seal on the instant loan agreement with the intent to stand a joint and several surety, but had mistakenly affixed the seal on the principal obligation column, and thus, the said loan agreement ought to be revoked.

③ Since the Plaintiff entered into the instant loan agreement using the Defendant’s initiative or experience, the said loan agreement is null and void as a juristic act that has considerably lost fairness.

B. Determination 11: (a) the Defendant entered into the instant loan agreement solely on the basis of the evidence No. 1 with respect to the determination as to the proposal.