A. On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff made a loan to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) by setting forth KRW 60 million as “9.5% per annum on interest rate, interest rate in arrears, 25% per annum, repayment period, 51 months in repayment method, and method of equal repayment of principal and interest in repayment method” (hereinafter “instant loan”).

On the same day, Defendant B provided joint and several sureties with the highest amount of the guaranteed debt of this case as KRW 72 million.

B. Defendant A lost the benefit of time on May 2, 2016 due to the delay in paying the principal and interest.

C. The balance of the principal and interest of the instant loan is KRW 57,419,804 in total, including the principal amount of KRW 54,755,678 as of June 17, 2016, KRW 858,462, interest interest of KRW 148,424, interest interest of KRW 148,424, interest of KRW 1,657,240, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 5

2. Assertion and determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 57,419,804 of the principal and interest of the instant loan and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from June 18, 2016 to the date of full payment, as to the principal amount of KRW 54,755,678 of the loan, to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B is liable to pay the said money within the maximum amount of KRW 72 million, the maximum amount of the guaranteed liability.

B. Determination of Defendant B’s assertion (1) The fact that Defendant B’s assertion on the instant loan was jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant B is recognized.

However, Defendant B was jointly and severally and severally and severally guaranteed for Defendant A’s actual owner, and thereafter, Defendant A and E were the owner of Defendant A and the dispute over ownership was commenced in the company.

Since Defendant B is not a joint and several surety for Defendant D and E, it is currently impossible to repay the loan obligation of this case.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment above, it is clear that Defendant B has jointly and severally guaranteed the loan obligations of this case, and Defendant B does not deny them. Thus, Defendant B is against the loan obligations of this case.