1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant B’s KRW 58,100,000 for the Plaintiff and its related amount on April 2014.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff has a claim of KRW 60,000,000 against the defendant B, and the defendant C guaranteed the above obligation of the defendant B.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,000 and damages for delay.

In fact, Defendant B introduced the Plaintiff in the process of borrowing KRW 30,000,000 from E, and had the Plaintiff offer the F land as security at the Jeju-si owned by the Plaintiff.

However, since D did not repay the above debt, the ownership of the land was transferred to E on February 14, 2008.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant B to compensate for damages, and on July 16, 2007, the Defendant B prepared a certificate of loan that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 45,000,000 to the Plaintiff by November 30, 2007.

Since then, Defendant B did not repay the above debt, the Plaintiff demanded Defendant B to prepare a new loan certificate. Accordingly, on October 11, 2012, Defendant B prepared a loan certificate stating that Defendant B would pay KRW 60,000,000 to the Plaintiff up to October 31, 2012.

(hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”). The above loan certificate is written as joint and several sureties, with the seal affixed to Defendant C’s name, and the back is accompanied by Defendant C’s certificate of personal seal impression.

On May 16, 2013, based on the above loan certificate, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan contract for consumption and loan contract for a notary public G office No. 798 of 2013, and extended the due date on December 31, 2013.

On February 17, 2014, Defendant B prepared a letter of intent that KRW 5,00,000,000, out of the above loans, would be repaid to the Plaintiff until February 21, 2014, and the remainder of KRW 55,00,000 until March 7, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] A’s assertion that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap’s evidence Nos. 7-1 and 7-2, and the purport of the whole oral argument as to Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is consistent with Defendant C’s joint and several liability.