1. Defendants are jointly and severally liable to 40,000,000 won and 20% per annum from March 17, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and on October 1, 2015.

1. On May 23, 2005, the Plaintiff and the Defendants asserted that they leased KRW 50 million to Defendant B with interest of KRW 40 million per month. Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations. The Defendants did not pay KRW 10,000,000 out of the above loan obligations, and did not pay KRW 40,000,000 of the remainder of the loan obligations. Thus, the Defendants seek payment of money as stated in the purport of the claim.

(A) On the other hand, Defendant B asserted that Defendant C, who is in charge of the representative of Nonparty D (hereinafter only referred to as “D”) as the actual debtor is Defendant C, was to repay the above loan debt. Defendant C is not a joint and several obligation but a simple and simple obligation, and the Plaintiff renounced or exempted the above loan debt against Defendant B.

The plaintiff's claim for the above loan goes against the good faith principle or the good faith principle.

Therefore, we examine the arguments of the plaintiff and the defendants in turn.

2. Determination

A. In determining the existence of the Plaintiff’s loan claim and the Defendant’s joint and several sureties, the Defendants acknowledged the authenticity of the loan certificate No. 1, and according to the entries in the evidence No. 1 and No. 1 and the Defendant’s examination, Defendant B’s lending and joint and several sureties’s guarantee can be acknowledged.

Therefore, Defendant C’s assertion that it is merely a mere guarantor is not accepted.

B. As Defendant B’s assertion on the instant loan is Defendant C, Defendant C was to pay the above loan debt, but this is merely an internal issue among the Defendants, and it does not constitute a ground for denying the Plaintiff’s claim.

Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion cannot be accepted.

C. Determination as to the waiver or exemption of the instant loan claims