A. There is no dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendants confirmed that they will pay 55 million won to the plaintiff to the police officer from August 28, 2013, and if they are unable to pay the plaintiff, they may prepare a cash custody certificate stating that they will be held liable for civil and criminal liability (hereinafter "the cash custody certificate of this case") and affix their signatures and seals, and then deliver the certificate to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff the amount of 55 million won agreed upon, and the following day after the agreed payment date of the bill of this case from August 29, 2013 to July 5, 2014, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and the defendant C shall be liable to pay 5% annual damages for delay calculated by 20% per annum from the following day of each civil law until June 27, 2014, and each of them shall be paid 20% per annum.

B. As to this, when Defendant C was unable to recover the Plaintiff’s money from Defendant C, Defendant C asked Defendant C to make an investment and not yet recover the said money, and Defendant C requested Defendant C to sign a signature on the cash storage certificate of this case so that the Plaintiff could not be used. This constitutes a conspiracy or false declaration of intention, and thus, Defendant C’s intent to guarantee the cash storage certificate of this case is revoked.

However, even if Defendant C’s expression of intent due to the cash custody certificate of this case was made due to Defendant C’s request, as alleged by Defendant C, the Plaintiff knew or could have known that the Plaintiff had known the truth of Defendant C in relation to the Plaintiff, who was the other party to the expression of intent, solely with the entries in subparagraphs 1 through 4, and witness E’s testimony.

(1) The case is one of the most important parts of this case.