1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 120,000,000 and KRW 20,000 among them, Defendant A shall have the effect on September 11, 2009, KRW 50,000.

1. As to the claim against the defendant A

(a) Claim for the payment of borrowed amount of KRW 120,000,000 in total and KRW 20,000,000 in around March 23, 2009 to the Plaintiff by Defendant A with the indication of the claim

(b) Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act: Judgment based on the recommendation of confession;

2. As to the claim against the defendant B

A. The facts of basic facts [based on the recognition] are without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings 1) The plaintiff lent to the defendant A, 100,000,000 won around March 23, 2009, 200, and 120,000,000 won around May 31, 2009, the defendant A borrowed to the defendant's spouse's joint and several sureties's debt guarantee amounting to 120,000,000 won until August 31, 2009 (the above 20,000,50,000 won until September 10, 2009, the plaintiff's spouse's loan and 120,000 won until October 30, 209 (the above 30,500,000 won).

B. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff and Defendant A jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation against the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant A and the Plaintiff are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 120,000,000 to the Plaintiff. On the other hand, Defendant B did not have jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation, and the instant loan certificate was forged.

C. If the seal imprinted by the signature holder’s seal affixed on the judgment document is affixed to it, barring special circumstances, it is presumed that the authenticity of the seal imprint is established, i.e., the act of signing and sealing it is based on the intention of the name holder, barring special circumstances. Once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed, the authenticity of the document is created in accordance with Article 358