A. Defendant B shall have full payment of KRW 30,000,000 and KRW 20,000 among them from August 1, 2015.

A. 1) On November 2012, the parties’ assertion that the plaintiff lent KRW 20,00,00 to the defendant B around November 201, and the defendant C and D jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation against the plaintiff, while the defendants asserted that the defendant B did not borrow KRW 20,000,000 from the plaintiff, and that the defendant C and D did not have any joint and several guarantee obligation for the above loan obligation of the defendant B. 2) The decision-making document should be objectively interpreted as having expressed the parties' intent in accordance with the terms and conditions stated in the disposition document, unless there are special circumstances where the authenticity is acknowledged, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu16505, Mar. 23, 190; 200Da16505, Jan. 1 through 3, 191; 201Da31224, Feb. 1, 2012, the plaintiff's signature and joint and several guarantee is attached to the defendant Eul.

According to the facts found above, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000,00 to Defendant B, and Defendant C and D jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation of Defendant B, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B is liable to pay to the principal debtor; Defendant C and D jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 20,000,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 14, 2015 to the date of delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case.

From April 24, 2014, the Plaintiff is a duplicate of the instant complaint.