1. B Loans made on April 24, 2012 to the Defendant as of April 24, 2012, interest and interest thereon, interest on arrears, and other ancillary obligations.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entry of the evidence No. 1.

On April 24, 2012, the Defendant loaned 10,000,000 general loans to B at the maturity of April 24, 2015, 37.8% per annum and 39% per annum.

B. As of April 24, 2012, the Plaintiff drafted a letter of guarantee (Evidence B No. 1) stating that the guarantee limit for the above loans to the Defendant in B shall be KRW 13,000,000,000 on the guarantee limit.

(hereinafter “instant collateral guarantee”). C.

The Defendant urged the Plaintiff to perform the obligation to guarantee the root of this case.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff did not provide the instant collateral guarantee for the Defendant’s above loan obligation. The instant collateral guarantee agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is null and void, since the Plaintiff signed the instant collateral guarantee agreement on the ground that the Plaintiff had no mental capacity at the time of the instant collateral guarantee, and the Plaintiff had no mental capacity at the time of the instant collateral guarantee obligation, and the instant collateral guarantee agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was null and void, not the Plaintiff’s telephone number, but the telephone number indicated in the column for the joint and several surety. In order to verify the intent of the instant collateral guarantee.

Therefore, there is no obligation to guarantee the defendant of this case.

B. At the time of concluding the instant probation guarantee contract, the Plaintiff completed the procedure for identification with his own cell phone, and the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s identification card and other documents from the Plaintiff and notified the Plaintiff of the main contents of the instant probation guarantee contract.

In addition, on April 11, 2013, the plaintiff recognized that the plaintiff is a guarantor B in currency with the defendant's employee.

At the time of entering into the instant collateral guarantee contract, the Plaintiff did not have any problem with the capacity of the Plaintiff, such as working for C.

Therefore, the plaintiff's objection.