1. Defendant B’s KRW 140,000 and its amount per annum from June 13, 2017 to January 15, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant C lent KRW 24% interest rate of KRW 15,00,000 per annum on November 20, 2009 and KRW 24% on March 31, 2010. On February 21, 2011, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000,000 to Defendant C with the interest rate of KRW 24% per annum and the due date of payment on April 30, 2011. During that period, if the money paid from Defendant C was appropriated to the interest rate of KRW 32,132,476, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 24% interest rate from February 6, 2016 to the date of payment.

B. 1) Determination 1) If the authenticity of a nominal holder’s seal affixed to a private document is reproduced by his/her seal, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established. Once the authenticity of the document is presumed, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the presumption that the act of signing and sealing is attributable to the intent of the nominal holder is de facto presumed. As such, if a person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprint proves circumstances that the act of sealing and sealing is against the will of the nominal holder, the presumption of the authenticity is broken if he/she proves that the act of sealing and sealing is against the will of the nominal holder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59122, Feb. 11, 2003). Moreover, if a disposal document is deemed to have been authentic, it should be presumed that the person has to have accepted the content of the document’s expression of intent and its content.