1. Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 185,860,366 as well as 24% per annum from December 21, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. Each fact stated in the reasons for filing a claim against Defendant C (However, the “creditor” is deemed to be the “Plaintiff”, and the “debtor” is deemed to be the “Defendant”) has no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C. As such, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 185,860,366 of the loan balance and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 24% per annum from December 21, 2018 to the date of full payment, which is the date following the date of dividend.

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that Defendant B is the principal debtor of KRW 100 million for Defendant B’s loan on August 23, 2017, and that it is a joint and several surety of KRW 200 million for the loan on September 15, 2017, and thus, the Plaintiff should pay the balance of KRW 185,860,366 and its delay damages.

B. In light of the following circumstances, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B is the principal debtor or the joint and several surety of the instant loan, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of evidence Nos. 1, 1-2, 1-2, 2-2, 1-2, and 1-2.

1) The Plaintiff, only to Defendant C’s account, remitted KRW 100 million on August 23, 2017, and KRW 200 million on September 15, 2017, respectively. 2) on August 23, 2017, the loan certificate (No. 1-1), written as the principal debtor, and on the loan certificate (No. 1-2) dated September 15, 2017, the Defendant B was written as the guarantor, but it cannot be presumed that Defendant B had the intent to assume the responsibility as the principal obligation or joint and several surety of the loan as the principal obligation or the joint and several surety because the signature or seal of Defendant B was not affixed.

3) The presumption of the establishment of a nearby mortgage registration is presumed only when the registrant is the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, or when duly acquiring the right to collateral security or meeting the effective requirements in the process of establishing the right to collateral security, which is the grounds for registration, and it is not presumed that the establishment or existence of the right to collateral security secured by the right to collateral security is presumed (Supreme Court).