1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 41,747,632 and KRW 10,663,94 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 41,747,63,94, December 2015.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the purpose of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 9:

1) On October 31, 1997, the Chungcheong Mutual Savings and Finance Company loaned 10,000,000 won to B on October 31, 1997 at the due date set at 15.5% of the interest rate on October 31, 1999 and at 22% per annum (hereinafter “the instant loan”).

(2) On the same day, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the debt incurred from the instant loan to the Chungcheong Mutual Savings and Finance Company B. (2) The instant loan claims were transferred from the Chungcheong Mutual Savings and Finance Company to the Korea-Japan Specialized Asset-backed Securitization Company on October 31, 2003, the Korea-China Mutual Savings Bank on April 30, 2007, and the Solomon Mutual Savings Bank on December 11, 2009, and then transferred the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff on November 29, 2011 (which was changed from the Credit Recovery Fund of the Korea-Japan to the trade name as of March 26, 2013). The aforementioned assignment of claims was notified to B as the principal debtor at the time of each transfer.

3) The remaining claims based on the instant loan are KRW 41,747,632 as of December 9, 2015 (i.e., principal amount of KRW 10,663,94 and damages for delay amounting to KRW 31,083,688.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, a joint guarantor, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed delay damages at the rate of 17% per annum for the Plaintiff as to KRW 41,747,63,94, the remaining principal and interest of the instant loan as of December 9, 2015, and the remaining principal and interest of KRW 10,63,944 from December 10, 2015 to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s defense against the instant loan claim expired by prescription.

B. The fact that the repayment period of the loan claim of this case was October 31, 1999 is as seen earlier.

However, according to the statement No. 8-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 8-2, the Liquidation Financial Corporation seeks against the Defendant the payment of the instant loan claim against the Changwon District Court Heading 2004Gada14034.