1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 167,90,000 and Defendant B with respect thereto from February 14, 2018, and Defendant C with respect thereto.

In addition to the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff extended the whole purport of the pleading, and on May 7, 2008, the plaintiff lent 167,90,000 won (hereinafter "the loan of this case") to defendant B on or before the due date for payment on August 6, 2008, and at the time defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations against the plaintiff by defendant C at the time. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the above amount of KRW 167,90,000 as well as the above amount of KRW 167,90,000 after the due date for payment, the following day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff, the defendant Eul from February 14, 2018, and the defendant C is liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 6,

(1) In light of the above legal principles, Defendant B, who actually used the loan of this case, is not Defendant B, but Defendant C, and Defendant B, for Defendant C’s loan of this case, prepared the No. 1 certificate, which is a notarial deed to the effect that Defendant B borrowed the loan of this case from the Plaintiff. However, inasmuch as Defendant B prepared the No. 1 certificate to the Plaintiff, the above circumstance alleged by Defendant B is difficult to deem that Defendant B did not have the duty to repay the loan of this case against the Plaintiff, and it is reasonable to see that the above circumstance alleged by Defendant B is only the legal relationship that must be settled between Defendant B and Defendant C.). Thus, the claim of this case against the Defendants by the Plaintiff is reasonable, and thus, we decide to accept this.