A. The Plaintiff provided loans to Defendant B from around December 2006, and Defendant B prepared a letter to the Plaintiff on September 8, 2014 that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff up to September 7, 2015. At the time, Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant C”) that Defendant B was the representative director at that time guaranteed the above lending obligation.

B. After that, Defendant B did not pay all the above loan obligations.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant B and C: Judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act): Defendant D Co., Ltd.: The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 6

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claims against Defendant B and C, Defendant B and C are jointly obligated to pay jointly the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 100 million borrowed from the loan to the next day of the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 3, 2018 to the day of full payment.

3. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) borrowed the above loan with Defendant D Co., Ltd., but it is not sufficient to recognize that Defendant D’s representative director borrowed the above loan with Defendant B solely on the circumstance that Defendant D Co., Ltd. borrowed the above loan with Defendant B’s son’s son’s son, and on the grounds of the entries and images of Gap’s 1 through 6, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant D borrowed the above loan with Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

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