On July 16, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 170 million to the Defendant Company’s account on July 23, 2012, with interest rate of KRW 1.5 million per month and due date of repayment until December 30, 2012. D transferred its total amount of KRW 200 million to the Defendant Company’s account on July 23, 2012.

C) The following loan certificates (hereinafter “the loan certificates of this case”) were drawn up in the presence of Defendant B, F, D, and E with respect to the above loan extended by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, witness E’s testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff alleged the judgment party’s assertion that the plaintiff lent KRW 170 million to defendant B under the joint and several guarantee of the defendant company, etc. as stated in the loan certificate of this case, and sought payment of the loan against the defendants.

As to this, the defendants asserted that the principal debtor of the loan certificate of this case is the defendant company, and D, E is the guarantor, and the defendant B has affixed his personal seal within the meaning of confirming the fact of borrowing the defendant company, and therefore, the defendant B is not liable to the defendant B.

Judgment

We examine whether Defendant B is the principal obligor of the instant loan certificate.

The main text of the loan certificate of this case states "(State), B, and D, and E are borrowed," and the facts stated in the loan certificate "(State) representative B" are as seen earlier.

However, the following circumstances are clearly distinguishable between the above evidence and the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, namely, the loan certificate of this case is clearly distinguishable between the lender and the guarantor. The lender’s name and the resident registration number are affixed to the lender’s name and the personal seal. The guarantor’s name and the defendant’s company’s name are attached thereto.