1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 50,000,000 won and the period from November 17, 2009 to November 22, 2017.

1. Claim against the defendant B

A. On September 9, 2009, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion lent KRW 50 million to Defendant B upon receiving a loan certificate (No. 1) from Defendant B with the introduction of the network E, and Defendant B’s network E and Defendant D jointly and severally guaranteed this.

Therefore, Defendant B is jointly and severally liable with Defendant C and Defendant D, the heir of the network E, to pay the Plaintiff KRW 50 million and its delay damages.

B. Defendant B’s summary of Defendant B’s assertion did not borrow money from the Plaintiff, but merely borrowed money of KRW 40 million from the network E, and only written a request for drawing up the loan certificate that the Plaintiff asserts only shows to others.

In addition, Defendant B paid 40 million won in full to the Dong E around the end of December 2009.

C. As long as the establishment of a disposition document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that denies the contents of the statement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da19776 Decided February 15, 2017 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da19776, Feb. 15, 201). The fact that Defendant B prepared the instant loan certificate (No. 1) with the purport that “Defendant B would redeem the Plaintiff KRW 50 million to November 16, 2009,” is without dispute between the parties, and the purport of the entire pleadings is taken into account in each of the statements No. 5 and No. 6, and the following circumstances, namely, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 50 million from its own account on September 9, 2009 to the account under the name of Defendant B, an employee of the Plaintiff, and deposited the deposit, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant B borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff.

In regard to Defendant B’s assertion of reimbursement, the evidence alone submitted by Defendant B cannot be deemed to have paid KRW 50 million to Defendant B E, and even if Defendant B had paid the above amount to Defendant B E.

(b)if any;