1. As to Defendant B’s KRW 36,200,000 and KRW 10,000 among them, Defendant B shall be from December 29, 2006, and KRW 26,200,000.

1. Claim against the defendant B

A. On October 2, 2006, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to Defendant B, and Defendant B repaid KRW 10 million out of which November 30, 2006, the remainder of KRW 10 million by December 28, 2006, and paid overdue interest at the rate of 36% per annum at a fixed date.

on March 5, 2007, the Plaintiff set the maturity of KRW 26.2 million to Defendant B on July 10, 2007 and lent it at the rate of 36% per annum.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Accordingly, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 30% per annum for the remainder of 26.2 million won from December 29, 2006 to the date of full payment, and from July 11, 2007 to the date of full payment.

2. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant C’s debt at the time of the above lending.

As shown in the plaintiff's assertion, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (written rejection of cash) are prepared by defendant Eul in the absence of defendant C, as the plaintiff was the plaintiff, and as to whether defendant Eul has the authority to conclude such joint and several guarantee arrangements on behalf of the defendant C, it is insufficient to recognize this only with the statement of evidence No. 4, and there is no other evidence. In light of all other evidence submitted by the plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that defendant C has jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations of defendant Eul even if all other evidence submitted by the plaintiff were submitted by the plaintiff, and there is no other assertion or evidence against the defendant C as to the joint and several liability of the above loan obligations.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is dismissed as it is without merit.