A. Indication of Claim: (a) the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to Defendant B on July 10, 2012; (b) Defendant D jointly and severally guaranteed the said obligation, and Defendant B and D jointly and severally agreed to repay to the Plaintiff KRW 10 million until December 31, 2014; and (c) KRW 20 million until February 27, 2015; and (d) the said repayment period has already arrived, the said Defendants are liable to pay the said loans and damages for delay.

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Defendant C Plaintiff loaned KRW 30 million to Defendant B on July 10, 2012, and Defendant C agreed to pay KRW 10 million until December 31, 2014, and KRW 20 million until February 27, 2015, with respect to the above obligation on December 23, 2014; Defendant C’s intent to guarantee Defendant B’s obligation to the Plaintiff is recognized by the statement of evidence No. 1; thus, Defendant C is liable to pay KRW 30 million and delay damages, barring special circumstances.

The plaintiff asserted that the contract of the defendant C was made as a joint and several surety doctor, but there is no evidence to deem that the defendant C was a joint and several surety doctor beyond the intention of simple guarantee, and therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Meanwhile, Defendant C alleged that it was an agreement as above with the intent to guarantee the principal and KRW 10 million, not with a guarantee for the total amount of KRW 30 million at the time of the above agreement. However, Defendant C agreed to pay KRW 10 million out of KRW 30 million until December 31, 2014, until February 27, 2015, as seen earlier, it is deemed that Defendant C guaranteed the total amount of KRW 30 million, and as such, Defendant C guaranteed damages for delay after the maturity, unless there was an agreement to exclude damages for delay from the scope of guarantee.