1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from February 4, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In the criminal conciliation proceeding where the Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant B as a crime of fraud, the agreement was reached that “Defendant B shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 to December 20, 2015.”

B. On December 20, 2015, Defendant B issued a note of payment (hereinafter “instant note of payment”) to the Plaintiff on December 30, 2015, while Defendant B did not pay the said money by December 20, 2015, and the main contents are as follows.

On February 3, 2016, the due date of 100 million won of the letter of payment, the principal undertakes to comply with the following provisions with respect to the payment of the above amount:

2. Where the payment is not made by the due date, 25% per annum shall be additionally paid to the unpaid overdue interest from the following day to the date of full payment.

B Ha [Grounds for Recognition], a joint and several surety C, which is a pledge on December 30, 2015, and the defendant B, has no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, the facts that there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant C, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Defendants jointly and severally agreed to pay KRW 100,000,000 to February 3, 2016, based on the instant payment note, the Plaintiff is liable to pay the said amount and damages for delay from February 4, 2016 to the date of full payment.

B. Defendant C’s assertion that the signature and seal on the instant letter of payment are consistent with its own, but it was signed and sealed in the letter of payment that he would pay KRW 100,000,000 to B. Defendant C’s assertion that the portion on the “joint guarantor B” and the “A Return” as stated in the instant letter of payment were added without authority after his signature and seal affixed. Thus, Defendant C did not agree to pay KRW 100,000 to the Plaintiff.

C. In full view of the reasoning of the entire pleadings as a result of appraiser D’s appraisal, Defendant C’s pledge is established after printing the B’s joint and several surety in the instant payment memorandum.