1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from January 1, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

As to the cause of the claim, comprehensively taking account of the written evidence Nos. 1 (For the reason that there is no dispute between the parties that the seals and signatures affixed by the defendant's name are the defendant, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established) and the written evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff prepared and delivered a loan certificate to the plaintiff to the effect that KRW 50 million and the defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the plaintiff on September 1, 2015 at the maturity of December 30, 2015 and interest rate of KRW 20%, and the plaintiff remitted KRW 50,00,000 to the account of the Co., Ltd. on September 1, 2015, and the defendant delivered the certificate with his personal seal impression issued to the plaintiff on September 3, 2015.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,00,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the agreement from January 1, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

A. The defendant asserts that the above KRW 50,000,000 is not a loan but an investment bond, and the requirements for the return of the investment bond have not been satisfied, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, as a mere guarantor who guaranteed D’s debt, the principal debtor, exercises the right of peremptory search defense against D, the principal debtor, seeking the payment of the debt and the execution of the property. However, according to the evidence No. 1, the loan certificate can be acknowledged as the fact that the Defendant and D were recorded as the borrower without any special distinction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant is the surety. Even though the Defendant is the surety, Article 437 of the Civil Act provides that even if the obligee claims the performance of the obligation to the surety, the surety must prove the fact that the principal debtor has the ability to pay the debt and that it is easy to execute the obligation.