1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded in the trial room, shall be modified as follows.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to lend KRW 50,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the Defendant’s spouse in a de facto marriage with the Plaintiff’s father’s spouse, the Defendant’s spouse as the Defendant’s spouse, for a two-month period, and the interest rate was set at 10% per month and agreed to lend KRW 50,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. Upon C’s request, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff on February 22, 2013. By March 1, 2014, the Defendant entered the name and resident registration number in each letter (hereinafter “each letter of this case”) stating, “I will be liable for any civil or criminal liability when I will not repay by March 1, 2014,” and issued it to the Plaintiff after attaching the Defendant’s personal seal impression.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2-10, 18, 19, 25, 26, and 28; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On February 22, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to D at the interest rate of 10% per month, and the Defendant concurrently assumed the obligation of the said borrowed amount.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 50 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum for the plaintiff from February 22, 2013.

B. According to the above facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant prepared and delivered each of the instant reports to the Plaintiff as meaning of bearing the obligation jointly with the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the instant loans and delay damages to the Plaintiff as the joint assumption of the obligation with respect to the instant loans, barring any special circumstance.

C. Determination 1 on the scope of the Defendant’s assumption of obligation is based on the relevant legal doctrine regarding the principal and interest of the lending agreement.