A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1-12 and Eul evidence No. 1.

1) On January 21, 2011, the Plaintiff is deemed to be the Diplomatic Association Diplomatic Association D (hereinafter “Nonindicted church”).

A) On January 21, 2012, the credit limit amount of KRW 300 million, the expiration date of the credit extension period, the interest rate of KRW 8.7% per annum, and damages for delay, concluded a credit transaction agreement with 25% per annum. On the same day, the Plaintiff is the land and building of the non-party church E (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(2) On January 25, 2013, Defendant A religious organization B (hereinafter “Defendant church”) acquired the instant real estate from the Nonparty church, and agreed to succeed to the loan to the Plaintiff of the Nonparty company at the time.

(No. 1 and Article 4). On the other hand, on March 27, 2013, on the real estate of this case, the alteration registration of the name of the owner of the defendant church was completed by the non-party company.

3) On November 1, 2013, the Defendant church succeeded to the above loan obligations of the Plaintiff and Nonparty Company at the interest rate of 5.5% per annum and the overdue interest rate of 25% per annum. Defendant C signed a written guarantee (Evidence A2) stating that the Defendant church’s obligation to the Plaintiff is jointly and severally guaranteed up to the limit of 3.90 million won. 4) The Defendant church’s obligation to pay the principal and interest of the instant case to the Plaintiff was overdue on September 21, 2015, lost the benefit of time around that time, and on November 30, 2015, there remains a total of 304,674,994 won including interest, overdue interest, etc. as of November 30, 2015 including the principal amount of 300 million won.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the defendant church received the principal and interest of the non-party company's loan of this case against the plaintiff around November 1, 2013, and at the time, the defendant C as the representative of the church in question guaranteed the work within the limit of KRW 390 million. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the money stated in paragraph (1) of this Article to the plaintiff.