1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 10,00,000 as well as 30% per annum from December 20, 2012 to the date of full payment.

1. As to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

A. According to the facts without dispute and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 9, it is recognized that on December 20, 2012, the plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the defendant B on December 20, 2012 at the maturity of payment on December 25, 2012 and at the rate of 2.5% per month (hereinafter "the loan of this case") (hereinafter "the loan of this case"), and related Gap evidence No. 1 loan certificate "the loan of this case").

As to this, Defendant B asserts that all of the borrowed money of this case was repaid.

However, the above assertion is not accepted as there is no other evidence to prove that Eul's each statement in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above fact of repayment.

C. Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 10 million and to pay 30% interest per annum to the Plaintiff at the rate of 20% from December 20, 2012 to the day of full payment.

2. As to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C

A. Both parties’ arguments asserted that Defendant C, on the premise that Defendant C had affixed his seal on the instant loan certificate and had a joint and several surety for the instant rent, the Plaintiff sought performance on the premise that Defendant C had a joint and several surety for the instant rent, and Defendant C did not affix his seal on the instant loan certificate and did not stand joint and several surety.

B. Determination 1) The fact that Defendant C is the pro-born of Defendant B, and the name and address portion of Defendant C’s column for joint and several sureties of the loan certificate of this case is not disputed between the parties. Defendant C recognizes that the seal affixed on his name is based on his own seal, but Defendant B affixed the seal. Defendant B stated at the first date for pleading of this case that the seal affixed on his own seal was affixed on the loan certificate of this case. Defendant B stated that the seal affixed on his own seal was affixed on his own seal at the first date for pleading of this case. 2) Unless there are special circumstances, the authenticity of the seal affixed on the document of legal doctrine is established, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the intention of the person who signed the document, barring any special circumstances.