1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) within the limit of KRW 6,745,00 and that of KRW 5,00,00.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 13, 2014, Nonparty B borrowed KRW 5,000,000 from the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”). At the time, Nonparty B agreed to repay the principal and interest at the 20th day of each month in equal installments.

B. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is the Plaintiff’s title B between the Defendant and the Defendant on the same day.

The joint and several guarantee contract was concluded within the limit of KRW 6,745,00 with respect to the debt of the loan specified in the subsection (hereinafter “debt of this case”).

C. B lost the benefit of time due to the failure to repay the debt of the instant loan.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the allegations by the parties and the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim together.

A. The plaintiff 1 of the parties' assertion that the non-party C, who was known during the process of finding out the loan due to the necessity of the business fund, would have the plaintiff get the loan to be provided in writing, and therefore, the plaintiff's joint and several sureties concluded the above joint and several sureties contract in trust with the horse, so the plaintiff's qualification as joint and several sureties should be lost. Furthermore, the contract with the same content as the above joint and several sureties contract was concluded simultaneously with the defendant as well as with other four loan companies, and some of the loan companies suggested that the plaintiff would be exempted from the guarantee liability without any condition if they withdraw the lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the obligation that the plaintiff raised, and therefore, considering these circumstances, the defendant was not in a position unrelated to the above C, etc., which appears to be the broker, and thus, the plaintiff knew or could have known that the plaintiff concluded the above joint and several sureties contract by deceiving it, and the plaintiff revoked the above joint and several sureties obligation under the above contract.