1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 53,326,648 and the interest rate thereon from June 28, 2013 to the date of full payment.

1. Claim against the defendant A;

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Grounds for recognition: Service by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. The parties' assertion asserts that Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the lease obligation of Defendant A to the Plaintiff.

As to this, Defendant B did not claim that there was no joint and several guarantee contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

B. According to the following circumstances, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 (including additional numbers), the authenticity of documents can be proven by comparing the overall purport of the pleadings (Article 359 of the Civil Procedure Act). If it is deemed that the authenticity of documents belongs to the free trial of the fact-finding court, and that the document's seal impression and the document's seal as the object of proof are identical, the authenticity of documents can be recognized unless special circumstances exist. In this case, the court may, without without any need to determine the sameness of the seal impression by appraisal, determine it by using land as the same seal impression without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da12707, Oct. 11, 191). The second evidence No. 1 appears to have been affixed by the seal impression No. 1, and the authenticity of documents is presumed to have been established by the seal impression No. 2, and the defendant Nos. 1 and 16 of the document submitted to the defendant No.