1. The loans extended by Defendant Pash Co., Ltd. are KRW 12,374,874 and the loans extended from June 14, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants are stock companies with each of their respective credit businesses.

(hereinafter the Defendants Company’ name “stock company” is omitted. B.

B On February 12, 2013, Defendant Lone Star Loans, smuggling Loans, and Future Cret Loans, each of which was KRW 12 million, and 12 million from Defendant Esbnb Loans on February 13, 2013, respectively.

B At the time of the above loan contract, the plaintiff was recorded as the joint guarantor B.

C. B died around May 2016.

From May 23, 2016 to May 27, 2016, the Plaintiff paid each of the KRW 12,149,656 to Defendant Lone Star Loans, KRW 12,374,874 to Defendant Cright Capital Loans, KRW 12,385,210 to Defendant Future Cright Loans, and KRW 5,396,886 to Defendant ETS Loans.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff's assertion did not have signed the joint and several guarantee contract between the defendants and the defendants, and in particular, it did not confirm the intent of the joint and several guarantee or deliver related documents on the defendant Pash loan.

The joint and several guarantee contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is not based on written documents, and is null and void in accordance with the former Special Act on the Protection of Surety (amended by Act No. 13125, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter “former Act on the Protection of Surety”).

B voluntarily died, and the Defendants urged the repayment of debt by asserting that the benefit of time was lost by the Defendants, and the Plaintiff made an inevitable repayment by concerns over the disadvantage of the Plaintiff’s work known to the spouse or a public official in the Defendants’ side.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not have concluded a joint and several guarantee contract, and the Defendants received each amount from the Plaintiff, so the Defendants are obligated to return the amount to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

(b).