1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant B and D's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The appeal cost arises between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C.

1. Claim against Defendant B and D

A. As to the cause of the claim, Defendant B borrowed KRW 70 million from the Plaintiff on May 29, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant loan”) by setting the interest rate of KRW 30% per annum and the due date for repayment until December 23, 2013; Defendant D and the first instance trial co-defendant E jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant B’s above loan obligation against the Plaintiff; on the grounds that there is no dispute between the parties, Defendant B and D jointly and severally with the Co-Defendant E of the first instance trial on the grounds that the said loan amount of KRW 70 million and the interest and damages for delay were paid to the Plaintiff on the last day of the period from June 1, 2014, which is the day following the last day of the period in which the Plaintiff was a person who was paid interest and damages for delay.

7. up to 14. There is an obligation to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum and at the rate of 25% per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. Defendant B and D’s defense of partial repayment of the loan amount of this case is a defense that Defendant B and D met part of the loan amount of this case. Thus, it is not sufficient to recognize that Defendant B and D met part of the loan amount of this case on the sole basis of the evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant B and D's defense is without merit.

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the instant loan amount of KRW 70 million and damages for delay, jointly and severally with Defendant B, D, and Defendant E, jointly and severally liable for the instant loan, by sealing the loan certificate (No. 1-1, hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) prepared by Defendant B with the Plaintiff on the loan of this case from the Plaintiff.

B. Article 3(1) of the former Surety Protection Act provides that "a guarantee shall take effect when its intention is written with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor," and Article 11 of the same Act provides that "this Act shall take effect."