Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 70,000,000 and 10% per annum from January 1, 2019 to October 7, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff lent KRW 100,000,000 to Defendant B on May 30, 201, set the due date of reimbursement of KRW 200,000 on June 30, 2013 and 200,000 per interest month. The Plaintiff drafted a certificate of monetary rent with the above content.

(hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”). B.

In the debtor column of the loan certificate of this case, the name and seal of Defendant C is affixed to the debtor column, and the name and seal of Defendant D is affixed to the joint and several surety column.

Defendant B, on behalf of Defendant D, obtained the deed signed by a notary public on May 30, 201, as a law firm E, No. 1252 on behalf of the notary public, for the purpose of this case.

C. The Plaintiff is a person who received reimbursement of KRW 30,000,000 among the principal amount from Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, defendant B's examination result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining loans of KRW 70,000,000, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from January 1, 2019 to October 7, 2019, the date of service of the Plaintiff’s final written complaint of this case, which is the date of service of the instant written complaint, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Determination as to Defendant D’s assertion

A. Defendant D’s assertion asserts that Defendant D’s joint and several guarantee was not made for Defendant B’s obligation to the Plaintiff, and that this case’s loan certificate was forged, and thus, Defendant D’s claim cannot be complied with.

B. It is presumed that the authenticity of the entire document is established due to the lack of dispute in the part of the Defendant D’s seal imprint of the evidence No. 1 (No. 1).

Defendant D asserts that this document was forged, but there is no evidence to prove it.

Rather, according to the result of Defendant B’s personal examination, Defendant B requested Defendant D, one’s own co-sureties at the Plaintiff’s request, and Defendant D accepted this and issued the instant loan certificate.