1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 45,00,000 and Defendant B from January 31, 2015 to September 2, 2015.

1. The Plaintiff: (a) on June 30, 2014, determined that the cause of the claim was determined and lent KRW 45 million to Defendant B on a maturity of 30% on September 30, 2014 and on the 3% interest month (hereinafter “instant loan”); and (b) the Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan obligations, there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; and (c) the entire document authenticity is presumed to be established between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C as there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as to the portion of the Defendant’s signature. Accordingly, in the sense of participating as a witness at the time of the instant loan, Defendant C voluntarily signed and delivered the portion of the “Witness” on the above loan certificate, and then the Plaintiff voluntarily stated the “joint and several” portion in the front of the said loan certificate, and thus, there is no evidence to prove that the title holder attested that the portion of the “joint and several” portion was supplemented ex post facto as alleged by the said Defendant.

Therefore, Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 45 million and the amount of delay damages at each rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of repayment, which is the delivery date of each complaint from January 31, 2015 to September 2, 2015, and Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of delay damages at each rate of KRW 30% per annum that the Plaintiff seeks within the scope of the agreed rate until July 6, 2015, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Defendant C merely participated as a witness at the time of the instant loan, and argued that there was no fact that Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant C’s obligation to the Plaintiff. However, the fact that Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to the instant loan at the time of the instant loan is identical as seen earlier. Accordingly, the above Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so ordered as per Disposition.