1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 150,000,00 and the Defendants B from August 13, 2016 to March 7, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 22, 2016, Defendant C prepared a loan certificate stating that it borrowed KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff in connection with the construction of multi-household loan on the E and two parcels of land owned by Defendant C, etc. (hereinafter “instant construction”). The main contents of the instant loan certificate are as follows.

The borrowed amount: The borrowed amount shall be fixed in the daily sum: the amount of the loan shall be borrowed to A, in terms of the charge of the person who incurred the construction of a new sewerage system for the construction of a multi-household and the cost of viewing and viewing the eight parcels of land, E and 8.

The borrower: B: The borrower must pay the amount of the loan within forty (40) days from the date of the loan in borrowing the said amount.

(Intermediate Omission) June 22, 2016

B. On the other hand, Defendant C affixed the seal of Defendant B in advance on the back of the name of Defendant B in the column of the borrower of the instant loan certificate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The facts that, in determining the cause of the claim, the seal affixed by the defendant B’s name and the seal affixed by the defendant C is affixed to the loan certificate of this case.

However, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 6, 9, and 13 as well as the entire arguments, the stamp of defendant B affixed the loan certificate of this case was used directly by the defendant Eul for various kinds of authorization and permission business related to the construction of this case. The defendant Eul, at the time when he affixed the seal of the defendant Eul with the loan certificate of this case, can be recognized as having explained the contents of the loan certificate of this case to the defendant Eul and affixed it with the authority delegated by the defendant Eul. Thus, the authenticity of the loan certificate of this case is recognized.

On the other hand, as long as a disposal document is deemed to be authentic, the court may deny its contents.