1. The Defendant’s KRW 132,200,000 as well as 5% per annum from November 13, 2013 to January 14, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are urology specialists.

B. On February 1, 2012, the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant’s female C through the introduction of the Defendant, which is a ship, and invested KRW 264.4 million in derivatives, such as gift, options, etc. that C manages, on February 17, 2012, KRW 150 million, KRW 210 million on February 21, 2012, KRW 240 million on February 24, 2012, and KRW 4.4 million on March 7, 2012.

(C) Transfer to the account of treatment securities in the name of C.

C On March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff promised to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 32,576,00,000,000,000,000,000, which is the day following the maturity date of the options in April 13, 2012, and the Defendant guaranteed this.

C On April 13, 2012, on April 23, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a “carcul” with the content that the Plaintiff would repay the total amount of KRW 3780,090,000 (including KRW 11,3690,000) of KRW 178,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000; and (b) at the time, C’s son’s son signed as the surety.

The defendant also signed as the guarantor by facsimile the above loan certificate from the plaintiff and sent it again to the plaintiff by facsimile.

(hereinafter “this case’s loan certificate”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 2-1-2, Gap evidence 3, Eul’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the allegations by both parties, the defendant, as the guarantor, is obligated to pay the principal of the investment to the plaintiff out of the amount agreed to repay with the loan certificate of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

However, in the event that there are several guarantors, each obligor is liable at an equal rate for the benefit of division, unless there is a special declaration of intention in accordance with the provisions of Articles 439 and 408 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da42297, Dec. 24, 2008). Since the Defendant and C’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son