1. As to KRW 97,400,000 among the Plaintiff and KRW 27,400,000, Defendant C, from June 1, 2016, KRW 70,000,000.

1. Basic facts

A. In conducting financial transactions with the Plaintiff, Defendant C has used Defendant B’s financial account in the name of Defendant C.

B. On January 1, 2016, Defendant C prepared to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowed amounting to KRW 70 million (hereinafter “the first certificate of borrowed amount”) and a certificate of borrowed amounting to KRW 50 million as of January 1, 2016 (hereinafter “the second certificate of borrowed amount as of January 1, 2016”) with the maturity of KRW 50 million, and the second certificate of borrowed amount as of May 30, 2016 (hereinafter “the second certificate of borrowed amount”) and the second certificate of borrowed amount and the first certificate as of January 1, 2016 in total.

Defendant C prepared a loan certificate as of January 1, 2016 of the instant case, entered Defendant B as the principal debtor and affixed his seal impression, affixed himself as a joint guarantor.

C. On June 14, 2016, Defendant C repaid KRW 20 million among the obligations based on each of the respective loan certificates as of January 1, 2016.

On August 10, 2016, Defendant C prepared a loan certificate of KRW 261 million and due date for repayment as of December 30, 2017 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of August 10, 2016”).

E. On August 19, 2016, Defendant C repaid KRW 30 million among the obligations based on the loan certificate issued by August 10, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above fact-finding determination as to the ground for the claim against Defendant C based on each of the loan certificates dated January 1, 2016, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid loan principal amount of KRW 100 million and delay damages therefrom, barring any special circumstance.

B) Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion (1) The above Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s coercion drafted each of the loan certificates as of January 1, 2016, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the above Defendant’s assertion is without merit. (2) The above Defendant’s assertion is without merit.