1. The guaranteed obligation based on a joint and several surety contract concluded on December 17, 2012 by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a lending company registered under the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users.

B. Around December 17, 2012, the Defendant loaned a loan of KRW 3 million to B at 39% per annum for interest and delayed interest rate, and at 60 months from the date of concluding the loan contract ( December 16, 2017).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant loan”). C.

Around that time, a joint and several guarantee agreement (No. 1) stating that the Plaintiff’s debt of the instant loan to the Defendant was jointly and severally guaranteed within the limit of KRW 4.170,000,000.

Around that time, the Defendant’s employees called the Plaintiff, and confirmed the Plaintiff’s personal information, explained the terms and conditions of the loan and the contents of the joint and several sureties in the above joint and several sureties Agreement, and asked the Plaintiff whether the said joint and several sureties Agreement

In this regard, the plaintiff responded to the purport that it is recognized even though he did not have signed in writing in the joint and several guarantee contract.

Accordingly, the defendant paid KRW 3 million to B under the loan contract of this case.

E. B does not repay interest and partial principal under the instant loan agreement and interest and delay damages on the loan principal amounting to KRW 2,446,769.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the cause of the claim;

A. The plaintiff in the main lawsuit seeks confirmation that the plaintiff's guaranteed obligation under the above joint and several sureties contract does not exist since he did not have signed directly in the above joint and several sureties

B. In the first place of the counterclaim, the Plaintiff signed the joint and several sureties contract, and confirmed whether the Plaintiff’s signature and the consent to guarantee was given by telephone conversations, etc. Meanwhile, the Defendant believed that the Defendant had a legitimate authority to conclude the joint and several sureties contract.