1. The defendant shall be jointly and severally and severally with C to the plaintiff KRW 50,000,00 and the period from December 21, 2012 to February 19, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2009, the Plaintiff received a request for a loan from C to make an investment in the Seoul Newcompon redevelopment project. As such, the Plaintiff borrowed money, and the Defendant clarified the intent of joint and several sureties for the said loan.

B. On April 26, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to C (hereinafter “the instant loan”) or the instant loan, and deposited the fixed amount of money (100 million won; hereinafter the same shall apply) from C by April 2010. The said amount was received a cash custody certificate stating “the cash custody certificate of this case” (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”). The Defendant signed the cash custody certificate of this case as joint and several sureties.

C. The Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 2 million on March 9, 2012, KRW 10 million on September 1, 2010, KRW 10 million on November 15 of the same year, and KRW 5 million on December 20 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that since the Plaintiff was unable to pay five million won among the instant loans from C and the Defendant, five million won and damages for delay shall be claimed. 2) The Defendant asserts that the instant loans sought by the Plaintiff are not loans that the Plaintiff reported and invested (in particular, if there is an agreement on separate investment and profit-making between the Plaintiff and C, they should be considered as investments) but should be considered as profits and losses of the redevelopment project if they are investments.

B. As long as the formation of a disposition document is recognized as the authenticity of its formation, the court shall recognize the existence and content of declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents of the statement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da48265, Feb. 26, 2002). According to the above facts of recognition, the above facts of recognition are examined.