A. On September 2, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 70,000,00 to Defendant B.

B. On September 2, 2013, there is a money borrowed (Evidence A 1) that Defendant C guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff on September 2, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 70,000,000 as borrowed money and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 13, 2016 to the date of full payment after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B to pay KRW 70,000,000 and the delay damages therefor. Defendant C lent the name of the business operator related to the distribution of Hanjin-dong Ship to Defendant B, and the Plaintiff traded money with Defendant B while the actual business operator was mistaken for Defendant C. As such, Defendant C bears the responsibility of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. The design attached to the evidence No. 1 of Defendant C’s assertion is the seal of Defendant C, but was stolen, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

C. The joint and several guarantee agreement among the monetary loan certificate (No. 1) is written by the Defendant B, and the Defendant C’s certificate of the personal seal impression among the certificate No. 1 is issued by the Defendant B on behalf of the Defendant. However, in light of the fact that the certificate No. 1 is accompanied by the Defendant C’s driver’s license, the entries of the certificate No. 1 are alone against the intent of the Defendant C.