1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 and Defendant B from March 17, 2017 to April 25, 2018.

The Plaintiff loaned KRW 40 million to Defendant B on October 2015 and around November 201 of the same year; Defendant B paid interest of KRW 30 million on March 17, 2017; and agreed to repay KRW 20 million until August 2017; and the Plaintiff urged Defendant B to pay KRW 40 million on several occasions may be recognized by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; or (b) there is no entire purport of the statement in subparagraph 1 and all pleadings.

Thus, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the interest in arrears calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from March 17, 2017 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 1, Defendant C guaranteed the Defendant B’s obligation for borrowed money.

Defendant C asserts to the effect that the condition was not fulfilled because Defendant B had been provided with a guarantee on the condition that Defendant B would provide the time limit.

However, the fact that a certain juristic act constitutes a condition precedent at the time of the fulfillment of a condition is deemed to constitute a juristic act subject to suspension of the effect of the juristic act, and that there is the burden of proving and proving the person who seeks to dispute the occurrence of the legal effect (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da20832, Sept. 28, 1993), and the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 are insufficient to acknowledge that the guarantee of Defendant C is a condition precedent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Ultimately, Defendant C also has the duty to pay the Plaintiff the debt of Defendant B as the surety.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and Articles 98 and 213 of the Civil Procedure Act apply to the burden of litigation costs and a declaration of provisional execution.