1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 55,00,000 and the interest rate thereon from January 24, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff did not specify interest of KRW 55,00,000 on July 5, 2006 and lent it to defendant B on July 20, 2006, and it can be acknowledged that defendant C, a male partner of defendant B, guaranteed the above loan obligation.

According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 55,00,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 24, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the date of final delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as requested by the Plaintiff.

[Guarantee under the Civil Act means a simple guarantee, unless there are special circumstances. If a joint and several guarantee is not a simple guarantee, the purport of the guarantee must appear in the disposal document, such as a loan certificate, and the above defendant's guarantee is merely stated only as a "sureties" under the cash custody certificate (Evidence A (Evidence A 1) containing the defendant C's guarantor, and it is consistent with the intent of the parties to view the above defendant's guarantee as a simple guarantee, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim to be jointly and severally paid to the defendants on a different premise is rejected). 2. The judgment of the defendant C as to the defendant's assertion is that the guarantee act of the defendant C is by coercion, and it is invalid, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above defendant's guarantee act was caused by coercion,

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.