A. On February 5, 2015, the Plaintiff indicated the claim: (a) lent KRW 42 million to Defendant B by the due date until March 31, 2015; and (b) received reimbursement of KRW 14 million from the said Defendant on March 4, 2015.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the loan amounting to KRW 28 million (i.e., KRW 42 million) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from April 1, 2015 to December 5, 2015, which is the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case from April 1, 2015, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant C’s debt owed to the Plaintiff under paragraph (1).

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity with respect to the part of Defendant C’s title among the evidence Nos. 1 (Evidence). Thus, it cannot be used as evidence in relation to whether Defendant C guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified, and the claim against the defendant C is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.