A. On July 26, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 70 million to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on March 31, 201 with the due date set as March 31, 201, does not conflict between the above parties. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant D guaranteed the above obligation of Defendant Company in light of the written evidence No. 1.

B. Therefore, as requested by the Plaintiff, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 29, 2014 to the day of full payment, as claimed by the Plaintiff, with respect to each of the above amounts of the Defendant Company and the KRW 35 million, among the above amounts, and each of the above amounts, as claimed by the Plaintiff, as to the Plaintiff, the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 29, 2014 to the day of full payment.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that Defendant C and each of the Defendant Company guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligations. As such, Defendant C and each of the Defendant Company is obliged to pay KRW 35 million out of the amount of the Defendant Company’s respective obligations.

B. As to whether Defendant C guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation, there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the evidence No. 1 (In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the testimony by the witness E, it is determined that the representative director of the Defendant Company, while keeping the seals of Defendant C in custody), and there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendant C guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is without merit.

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