1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff is based on the payment order (Seoul Central District Court 2018Hu1327553, Dec. 6, 2018).

1. Basic facts

A. The network C obtained a loan from the Defendant, a financial institution (hereinafter “instant loan”), and purchased D Motor Vehicles (hereinafter “instant Motor Vehicles”). On September 29, 2017, the application for the loan made between the Defendant C and the Defendant, the network C contains the Plaintiff’s name in the form of the loan amounting to KRW 98 million, interest rate of KRW 8 million, interest rate of KRW 8.9%, overdue interest rate of KRW 25%, joint and several sureties’s guarantee amount, KRW 60 months, maximum guarantee amount of KRW 127.4 million, and column for joint and several sureties’s guarantee amount, and the Plaintiff’s seal is affixed.

(B) The guarantee contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is "the instant guarantee contract".

The Defendant delayed the payment of principal and interest arising from the instant loan, and received the payment order against the deceased C and the Plaintiff by applying for the instant payment order. The amount claimed is “86,159,676 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from November 13, 2018 to the date of complete payment”.

The instant payment order was finalized on November 30, 2018.

C. Meanwhile, on October 11, 2018, the deceased C died, and all his inheritors, including the Plaintiff, approved the inheritance limit.

The Defendant applied for a voluntary auction of the instant automobile (the number is different, but the same motor vehicle) and on June 24, 2020, received dividends of KRW 15,480,450 in the said voluntary auction procedure.

(A) The demand for distribution by the Defendant was written in the form of KRW 84,529,181, interest 15,749,797). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s 1,10-13, Eul’s 1,3,4,7,7,8,10, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim, etc.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant guarantee agreement was made by the network C with the signature and seal affixed to the Plaintiff’s name. This is not a method of signing and sealing or signing pursuant to Article 428-2(1) of the Civil Act, and thus, the instant guarantee agreement is null and void (the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the Plaintiff’s name).