1. Defendant C’s KRW 60 million, among the Plaintiff:

A. As to KRW 30 million, January 24, 2009 to July 14, 2014

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff on December 13, 2008 at the maturity of payment on April 13, 2009 and at the rate of 3% per month.

B. Defendant C borrowed each of the loans from the Plaintiff on January 26, 2009 with the maturity of KRW 30 million as of December 26, 2008.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1's evidence, each part of Gap 3's evidence, witness D's partial testimony, purport of whole pleadings】

2. Assertion and determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged as to the claim against Defendant C, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 60 million, interest thereon, and delay damages.

B. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the claim against the Defendant B is jointly and severally liable for reimbursement of KRW 60 million jointly and severally with the Defendant C, as the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the Defendant C. Even if it is not recognized that Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation, the Defendant C used the loan money to repair the house in which the Defendants reside together, and thus, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with the Defendant C in accordance with Article 832 of the Civil Act, as the ordinary household liability, the obligation of the Defendant C is the obligation to pay the obligation of the Defendant C. (2) The evidence No. 1 through No. 3 was written according to the Defendant B’s intent, first of all, and evidence No. 1 through No. 3, which is evidence that the signature and seal of the Defendant B, which was written according to the Defendant B’s intent, is part of the evidence No. 4-1 (D) and some of the witness D testimony.

However, in a factual confirmation that Defendant C had obtained the Defendant B’s seal from the inside of the port, but when testimony is made in this court, Defendant B had the seal affixed to Defendant C. At the time of testimony, Defendant B stated that at the first time, Defendant B was in the right room of the right room, and stated that Defendant B’s “s right-hand right-hand as the basis of entry” was not a memory to ask questions in order to clarify the statement.