2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On September 2015, the Defendant awarded a contract for the instant construction work to Nonparty D at the time of the south of the Defendant’s wife name (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. 1) D was the friendship of Nonparty E, the Plaintiff’s father-car, and was in a money transaction relationship, including borrowing money from the Plaintiff. At the time of the said money transaction, the Plaintiff used the deposit account in the name of Nonparty F, and D used the Nonparty G’s deposit account in the name of Nonparty G, his wife, respectively. 2) In relation to the instant construction, the Plaintiff lent money to D on October 19, 2015, using the F’s deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff, to deposit KRW 20,000,000 with the G’s deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff, using the F’s deposit account. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26650, Nov. 26, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 2680

B (Defendant) borrowed KRW 50,000,000 on December 28, 2015 from H’s agent A (Plaintiff). He promised to pay the amount until January 28, 2016.

I will be subject to civil and criminal liability for the above contents.

C. Meanwhile, on December 27, 2015, the Defendant, via D, drafted and delivered to the Plaintiff a letter of payment as follows (hereinafter “instant letter of payment”). D.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff received the instant payment note from D, and deposited KRW 47,000,000 in the deposit account in the name of G on December 28, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff guaranteed the payment of the Plaintiff’s loan amounting to KRW 50,000,000 to D (hereinafter “instant loan”) by the Defendant’s drafting and granting the instant payment note. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant, as a guarantor for the instant loan, should pay the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 as well as damages for delay.

As to this, the Defendant, at the request of D, made up a memorandum of payment of this case to the Plaintiff via D in order to borrow KRW 50,000 from the Plaintiff for the construction cost of this case, but the Plaintiff was the Defendant.