1. Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 114,00,000 and Defendant A from October 8, 2016, and Defendant B from April 9, 2016.

Basic Facts

On June 22, 2009, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 95,000,00 to C Co., Ltd. with interest rate of KRW 4.33% per annum, interest rate of KRW 12% per annum, interest rate of KRW 12% per annum, and loan maturity of June 22, 2012, and the Defendants provided joint and several guarantee amount of KRW 114,00,000.

C from December 2010 to December 15, 2012, beginning with delay of the principal and interest payable every month in accordance with the above loan agreement, C lost the benefit of time on March 15, 2012.

As of November 30, 2015, the loan principal of KRW 72,50,00, interest KRW 2,662,875 and interest interest in arrears of KRW 38,829,96 and interest in arrears of KRW 114,042,871 remain.

[Ground for recognition] Defendant A: In light of the facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and facts prior to determination as to the cause of claim as to the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendants are obligated to pay 114,00,000 won, which is the maximum amount of continuing guarantee, among the total amount of principal and interest, etc. remaining as of November 30, 2015, and the amount of KRW 114,00,000, which is the maximum amount of continuing guarantee, as of November 8, 2016 (Defendant A) and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from April 9, 2016 (Defendant B) to the date of full payment.

As to this, Defendant B was scheduled to be appointed as the auditor of the Co., Ltd. on June 2009, and signed and sealed as joint and several sureties. At the time of the loan, the Plaintiff’s employees were required to be the joint and several sureties as the auditor of the above Co., Ltd., but the above joint and several sureties was not appointed as the auditor of the above Co., Ltd., and therefore, the above joint and several sureties is invalid. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above Defendant’

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is accepted as reasonable.