1. The Defendant’s KRW 67,401,030 as well as its annual 6% from October 22, 2014 to November 10, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a guarantee insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with Pemanti Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Pemanti”), as follows, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to be borne by Pemanti under the instant insurance contract through digital signature using an authorized certificate with respect to the obligation to be borne by the Plaintiff.

Insured: Amount of insurance coverage covered by Coul Environment Services Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Coul Environment Services"): 75,400,000 insurance period: 15% per annum from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015: The delayed damage rate applicable from the day after the date of payment of insurance proceeds to March 31, 2015:

B. After doing so, Pene did not pay the sales price for recycled environmental services, the insured, and on October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 67,401,030 to the Corul Environmental Services according to the instant insurance contract upon the claim for the Corul Environmental Services.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry (including paper numbers) in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 67,401,030 as well as the delay damages at the rate of 6% per annum from October 22, 2014, the day following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served to November 10, 2014, which is the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that there is no memory for the joint and several surety of the insurance contract of this case, and there is no explanation about the insurance contract of this case, and that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request. However, there is no evidence to prove that the authenticity of the content of insurance covered by the evidence No. 1-2 (payment) under Article 3 of the Digital Signature Act has been presumed, and otherwise, the defendant's signature has been forged.