A. On September 30, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 50,00,000 to C, the Defendant’s denyingr, 2% per month; (b) the due date for repayment was determined as of September 30, 2012 (hereinafter “instant loan”); and (c) borrowed certificates (Evidence A No. 1-1 and hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

B. The loan certificate of this case is signed and sealed by the Defendant as a joint and several surety on July 13, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the Plaintiff the interest of KRW 94,000,000 with the principal and interest of the instant loan (the principal of KRW 50,000,000,000 from November 30, 2012 to June 30, 2016) and the principal of KRW 50,000,000,000 with the interest and interest of KRW 50,00,000 with the interest and interest of KRW 15% per annum as sought by the Plaintiff within the scope of the agreed interest rate from December 16, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.

B. The Defendant asserted that the instant loan certificate was signed and sealed as a joint and several surety, and that C was forged, but the Defendant submitted a written application for payment order and a written answer without being served with the written application for payment order and the written complaint.

According to the statement Nos. 1-2 and 1-2 of the evidence No. 1-2, the defendant himself/herself applied for and issued on July 13, 2015, and the certificate of personal seal impression stating "for joint and several several sureties's guarantee" was issued to the plaintiff for the purpose of use, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff filed a complaint for the crime of forging private documents, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the defendant's signature and seal of the loan certificate of this case was directly or upon delegation by the defendant. Thus, the defendant'

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.