1. As to KRW 53,00,000 and KRW 50,000 among the Plaintiff, Defendant B’s year from April 27, 2014 to July 21, 2015.

1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 as to the claim against Defendant B, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50 million to Defendant B on September 27, 2012 at the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum and due date of repayment on September 26, 2014. It is recognized that the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 3 million out of the interest rate of KRW 9.5 million for the period from September 27, 2012 to April 26, 2014.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages at the rate of 12% per annum from April 27, 2014 to the rendering of the pertinent judgment, which is reasonable to dispute over the scope of the obligation of the Defendant, as to the principal of KRW 53 million and KRW 50 million, with interest or delay damages at the rate of KRW 12% per annum, and with interest or delay damages at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

(A) The Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of damages for delay at a rate of 20% per annum from August 1, 2014, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint before the due date, but there is no evidence to prove that Defendant B lost or renounced the benefit of time. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the portion exceeding 12% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate of the Plaintiff’s above claim, cannot be accepted). 2. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant C guaranteed the obligation of Defendant B under paragraph (1) and sought payment of the money as stipulated in paragraph (1) jointly and severally with Defendant B.

Although there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image next to the defendant C's name, which is the evidence Nos. 2-1 (Joint Guarantee Certificate), is based on the above defendant's seal, the above evidence Nos. 2-1 is prepared by the defendant Eul and the seal of the defendant C, and it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant B had the authority to affix the seal of the defendant C solely on the facts stated in the evidence Nos. 7-1 through 10 or the defendants are legally married couples.