2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The plaintiffs are obligated to pay to the defendant the amount of KRW 80 million on January 15, 2001, and the amount of KRW 18% on a yearly basis, and on February 5, 2001, the repayment period of KRW 500 million on May 7, 2001 and the annual interest rate of KRW 18% on a yearly basis (hereinafter each of the loans of this case). The defendant extended the repayment period at the defendant's request and received interest on each of the loans of this case until August 2006. The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the interest amount of KRW 80 million on each of the loans of this case and interest and delay damages after September 1, 2006.

(b) Preliminary cause of claim.

The plaintiffs lent money to the non-party 1 corporation the above contents, and at the time of lending, they received promissory notes endorsed by the defendant as the first endorsement from the non-party 1 corporation, the defendant is obligated to pay it to the plaintiff as the guarantor of the loan obligation of the non-party 1 corporation.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the primary cause of the claim

According to the evidence No. 1-2, No. 1-2 (the front and rear side of the Promissory Notes, and the first endorsement column of the Defendant’s loan, the authenticity of promissory notes related to the first endorsement under the name of the Defendant is presumed to have been established. The Defendant defense that the above endorsement under the name of the Defendant was forged, but no evidence exists to acknowledge it), Gap evidence No. 1-3, 4 (each of the above documents is in dispute, and the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established. The Defendant, although there is no defense that each of the above documents was forged, there is no evidence to acknowledge it), and according to the testimony of the witness No. 4, according to the fact that the Plaintiffs lent the money to the Defendant on January 15, 201, the amount of KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and the amount of KRW 1-2,000,000,0000,0000,0000,000 won, respectively, were insufficient to recognize each of the above facts.

B. Determination on the conjunctive cause

The Defendant’s endorsement of the Promissory Notes No. 1 and No. 2 issued by Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. as the first endorsement of the Promissory Notes is as shown in the foregoing A. However, in principle, an endorser who endorsed a Promissory Notes issued by another person as an endorsement of the Promissory Notes shall bear only the obligation arising out of the endorsement of the Promissory Notes. However, the endorser is liable to guarantee the obligation arising out of the underlying obligation only in the absence of special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da5922, Dec. 2, 1994; 92Da17457, Dec. 22, 1992, etc.).

In full view of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the testimony of Non-Party 4 and 6, the defendant and Non-Party 1 corporation all engaged in the profit-making business of ○○ Private Teaching Institutes, and the fact that Non-Party 2 worked as the representative director of the defendant until January 2, 2001, prior to the issuance of the bill of promise Nos. 1 and 2. However, the above fact alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant, while being well aware that the bill of promise Nos. 1 and 2 was issued in lieu of a loan certificate as to each of the loans obligations of this case, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant was endorsed on the bill of promise Nos. 1 and 2 of this case with the intent to guarantee each of the loans obligations of this case, and there is no other evidence to support this part of the plaintiffs' assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jin-hee (Presiding Judge)