1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 89,240,00 and Defendant B and D with respect thereto from September 25, 2013, and Defendant C with respect thereto.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Fact 1) On April 4, 2006, Defendant B agreed to pay the loan amount of KRW 95,00,000 to the Plaintiff and the existing loan amount of KRW 95,00,000, and on July 5, 2006, Defendant D, the husband of Defendant B, and Defendant C, the husband of Defendant B, jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation. The Defendants on the same day (a evidence No. 1 and the instant loan certificate) are the same as above.

(2) From August 28, 2006 to February 11, 2011, Defendant B or Defendant D repaid KRW 5,760,000 out of the above loan to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 89,240,00 ( KRW 95,00,000-5,760,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 25, 2013 to the date of the delivery of the complaint (Defendant B, D: Defendant C: November 17, 2013) to the date of full payment.

2. Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion

A. Defendant C’s assertion, around 2004, jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant C’s obligation and deposited the seal with Defendant D. In addition, Defendant C’s custody of the seal received from Defendant C, on his own discretion, affixed the seal on the loan certificate of this case while the seal was kept.

Defendant C did not jointly and severally guarantee Defendant C’s obligations, such as the loan certificate of this case.

B. In a case where it is recognized that the seal affixed to a document is the seal affixed to the name holder’s seal, barring any special circumstance, the establishment of the seal imprint is presumed to have been made on the basis of the will of the name holder’s signature. On the other hand, when the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, a person who asserts that the document is forged needs to prove that the above seal was affixed against the will of the name holder’s own seal (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da729, Feb. 5, 2002).