A. On August 9, 2016, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50,000,00 to E Co., Ltd., and received KRW 200,00,000,000, which is added to KRW 150,000 as the name of interest or investment profit on January 9, 2017.

B. At the time of the above loan, Defendant D, a registered director of Plaintiff E, who was the F-friendly relationship with the representative director F at the time of the above loan, and Defendant C, who arranged the above loan contract, jointly and severally guaranteed the above contractual obligations of Plaintiff E.

C. The Defendants, a joint and several surety, are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the interest rate of 5,030,136 won per annum (the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act) calculated from January 9, 2017 to January 9, 2017, and the principal of 50,000,000 won per annum from January 10, 2017 to the service date of the original copy of the payment order (the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act), and damages for delay applying the interest rate under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day after the delivery of the original copy of the payment order to the day of complete payment.

2. The judgment rendered by each confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) (the Defendants are served on May 28, 2019 the original copy of the original payment order and the documents attached to the application for the payment order, etc. after Defendant D was sent to the litigation procedure. Defendant D filed an objection on February 25, 2019 on the premise that the original copy of the instant payment order was served. As such, Defendant D is deemed to have been served on February 25, 2019 on the premise that Defendant D was served with the original copy of the instant payment order, the original copy of the instant payment order is deemed to have been served on February 25, 2019. Defendant D submitted a simple written reply without any content disputing the Plaintiff’s dismissal or claim, and did not thereafter appear on the date for pleading, and therefore, the Defendants were deemed to have led to the confession of all the Plaintiff’s assertion under Article