A. On October 15, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with Defendant C with each of the lending limit of KRW 30,000,000, the lending period from October 15, 2003 to October 15, 2005, the interest rate of KRW 11% per annum (changing interest rate), and damages for delay at 18% per annum.

(B) The loan agreement of this case is the way for Defendant C to lend money from time to time within the loan limit. (hereinafter “the loan agreement of this case”).

On the other hand, Defendant D and Nonparty E signed and sealed the loan transaction agreement (Evidence A No. 1) as a joint and several surety for the instant loan agreement on the same day.

C. The loan term of the instant loan agreement was extended several times, and Defendant C lost its interest on January 1, 2015 due to overdue interest, and on October 21, 2015, the principal amount of the instant loan as of October 21, 2015 is KRW 30,000,000, unpaid interest, and unpaid interest at a total of KRW 5,034,023.

Meanwhile, around October 15, 2005, the Plaintiff agreed to extend the term of the loan agreement of this case from Defendant D to October 15, 2007. On October 15, 2007, the Plaintiff agreed to extend the term of the loan agreement of this case by October 15, 2009. On October 15, 2009, the Plaintiff agreed to extend the term of the loan agreement of this case by October 15, 2009. However, on October 15, 2009, the Plaintiff did not consent to the extension of the term of the loan agreement of this case by October 15, 201.

【In the absence of any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (a loan transaction agreement, the defendants' defense that the document was forged, but the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established due to the lack of dispute on the defendants' seal imprints, and there is no evidence to prove that the above presumption was followed, as seen in the following paragraph 3), Nos. 3-1 through 3 (a letter of change of the terms of credit, the defendant C's defense that each document was forged. However, since there is no dispute on the part of the defendant C's seal imprints, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established, there is no evidence to prove that each document was forged), Nos. 2 and 4.