1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 150,000,00 and 5% per annum from April 18, 2013 to July 26, 2015.

1. The plaintiff argued by the parties that the plaintiff lent KRW 150 million to the defendant B, and the defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the above debt owed to the plaintiff by the defendant Eul, so the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount to the plaintiff.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that, on April 11, 2013, the Plaintiff did not borrow KRW 150 million from D Co., Ltd., which was working for Defendant B, and did not pay any balance in purchase of KRW 150 million, and Defendant B loaned KRW 600,000 to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff still did not pay any balance in excess, but the Plaintiff did not borrow KRW 150,000 from the Plaintiff.

2. If the parties to the determination prepare in writing a certain contract content between the parties to the contract, the expression used in writing shall not be cited, but the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expressing it by the written contents, regardless of the parties’ internal intent, should be reasonably interpreted. In such a case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence of the expression of intent and its contents should be acknowledged, barring special circumstances.

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Da2245 Decided April 26, 2013). According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the entire arguments, the plaintiff lent 150 million won to defendant B on April 18, 2013 without fixing the due date for repayment. Defendant C has jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation to the plaintiff. The defendants have a cash custody certificate of the same contents as the date on which they were identical to the plaintiff, and the amount of investment KRW 70 million in F other real estate on October 31, 2013, the defendants made a written performance statement to pay the remainder of KRW 80 million after the completion of construction work. Accordingly, the objective meaning of the text is clear. Accordingly, the plaintiff has made it clear in accordance with its language and text.