1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff KRW 55,00,000 and as a result, from May 12, 2017 to November 9, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 11, 2016, Defendant B borrowed KRW 55 million from the Plaintiff on May 11, 2016 as the due date for repayment determined on May 11, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

Defendant C, the form of Defendant B, guaranteed the Plaintiff the above loan obligation against the Plaintiff.

[Evidence Evidence: Evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(i) each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, Defendant B and joint and several sureties, the principal debtor, are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 55 million borrowed from May 12, 2017 to November 9, 2020, the final service date of the original copy of the instant payment order from May 12, 2017, which is the day following the due date, to the Plaintiff, 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

B. As to Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C simply guaranteed Defendant C’s obligation to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B was sufficiently able to repay. Therefore, the Plaintiff first claims a loan to Defendant B, which is the highest and search defense.

The guarantee between the plaintiff and the defendant C is not a simple guarantee agreement, but a joint and several guarantee agreement is a joint and several guarantee agreement, and in the case of a joint and several guarantee, the right to the highest search is not recognized to the guarantor, so the above defense by the defendant C cannot be acknowledged.

(B) In order for Defendant C to exercise the highest search and seizure defense right against the obligee even if Defendant C is a simple surety, it is necessary to prove the fact that the principal obligor has the ability to repay and its execution is easy. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant C has the ability to repay or its execution is easy. Thus, Defendant C’s claim against the Defendants can be accepted in entirety.