1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 4, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

Facts of recognition

A. On August 3, 2005, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 100 million to C as of August 3, 2008.

C around that time, the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate with respect to the above loan debt (hereinafter “the first loan certificate of this case”). At the time, the Defendant stated his name in the column of the guarantor of the first loan certificate of this case and affixed his seal on the side.

B. On August 30, 2016, C prepared a loan certificate stating that the Plaintiff will pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 300 million by adding up the loan debt in accordance with the first loan certificate and other obligations against the Plaintiff, and that in order to secure the above KRW 300 million debt, C shall establish a security right in the factory owned by C (hereinafter “the second loan certificate”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, and judgment as to the grounds for a claim as a whole of the pleadings

A. In a case where a disposal document is deemed to be authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the content of the statement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da19776, 19783, Feb. 15, 2017, etc.). B.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant stated his name in the guarantor column of the first certificate of this case and affixed his seal on the side. In light of the ordinary meaning of the "sureties", it is reasonable to view that the defendant expressed to the plaintiff the intent to jointly and severally guarantee the debt of C with the loan pursuant to the first certificate of this case, unless there are other special circumstances, and the testimony of this purport C is difficult to believe in light of its specific testimony.

(A) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant signed and sealed the No. 1 certificate of this case in the sense that the Defendant was present at the time of the preparation of the No. 1 certificate of this case is not acceptable). Accordingly, another special circumstance is acceptable.