1. Defendant C’s KRW 100,000,000 and its related amount are 12% per annum from January 1, 2013 to August 17, 2016.

1. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute over the claim against Defendant C, and the purport of the written evidence No. 2 and the entire pleadings, Defendant C may recognize the fact that it borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff on December 30, 2009 with the interest rate of KRW 100 million per annum, and the due date of repayment on November 30, 2010. Accordingly, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest at the rate of KRW 100 million per annum from January 1, 2013 to the date of this decision and delay damages calculated with the rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

As to this, the defendant's defense that he was exempted from interest from the plaintiff around March 2013, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B, along with Defendant C, borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff on December 30, 2009 with the interest rate of KRW 100 million on a monthly basis and on November 30, 2010.

In light of the following facts, although there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image next to the defendant B's name, which is the evidence No. 2, is based on the above defendant's seal, the defendant C may recognize the fact that the defendant C affix the seal of the defendant B to the above loan certificate, taking into account the fact that there is no dispute, the result of the personal examination of the defendant C, and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant C was authorized to affix the seal of the defendant B to the above loan certificate. Thus, unless there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the evidence No. 2 cannot be used as evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is justified, and the claim against the defendant B is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.