1. The Defendant (Appointed Party)’s KRW 30,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 1, 2010 to June 7, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 30 million to the Defendant (Appointed Party) on May 1, 2005, and KRW 30 million on June 11, 2005, on the ground that the Defendant (Appointed Party) requires money to purchase D land of the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and agreed to pay KRW 30 million on June 15, 2006 to the Defendant (Appointed Party) by December 31, 2009.

B. On October 20, 2010, Defendant (Appointed) prepared joint and several sureties’s joint and several sureties’s joint and several sureties’s signature and seal in the column for joint and several sureties’s joint and several sureties’s joint and several sureties, and issued the said joint and several sureties’s certificate to the Plaintiff. On October 21, 2010 following the date, Defendant (Appointed) issued a certificate of personal seal impression C, copy of resident registration certificate, and resident registration record card copy to the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1-4, Eul evidence No. 5-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the Defendant (Appointed Party) was admitted under paragraph (1), the Defendant (Appointed Party) is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 3,000,000 and the damages for delay from the day following the due date for payment.

The plaintiff sought payment of interest at 20% per annum from June 15, 2006, but there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff agreed to pay interest at the above interest rate, and this part of the assertion is rejected.

B. As to the Selection C, the Plaintiff asserted that the Selection C had jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant (Appointed Party)’s obligation of the above loan prohibition against the Plaintiff, but the above assertion is not accepted as there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that since the defendant (appointed party) is a representative of expression under Article 126 of the Civil Code in entering into a joint and several surety contract, the Appointed C is responsible as the principal of the above contract.

However, as seen earlier.