1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant C, 15,809,995, and 12,500 among the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C borrowed money from the Plaintiff, and around February 199, Defendant C was “the certificate of borrowing KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff” (hereinafter “the certificate of borrowing”).

B. The above loan certificate is written by Defendant B, the wife of Defendant C, as joint and several sureties. The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. Defendant B, around February 199, has jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant C’s obligation to borrow the above KRW 20,000,000 against the Plaintiff, who is the husband, and thus, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 20,00,000 and the delay damages therefor.

B. In the instant case where Defendant B asserted that Defendant C entered himself as a joint and several surety without his consent, it is difficult to recognize the fact that Defendant B’s joint and several surety was prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff merely because the loan certificate of this case with Defendant B as a joint and several surety is not sufficient to recognize the fact of the joint and several surety, and otherwise, Defendant B directly signed and sealed the loan certificate of this case as a joint and several surety.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant C had performed joint and several sureties with the authority of joint and several sureties delegated by the defendant C.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. As seen earlier, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 20,000,000,000 and delay damages therefrom, barring any special circumstance.

B. As to the Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C asserted that the instant loan certificate was invalid since it was drafted by coercion by the Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant loan certificate was drafted by the Plaintiff’s coercion.