1. The defendant,

A. From April 8, 2011, 240 million won to Plaintiff A and 24% per annum to the day of full payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1- 3 and Eul evidence No. 6.

(1) On April 8, 2011, F, as the Defendant’s father, managed E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), issued and delivered a certificate of borrowing KRW 40 million with the purport that the Plaintiff A will borrow 40,000,000 from the date when repayment is requested, and the due date will be one month after the date when repayment is requested. Around November 201, F, as the Defendant’s father, issued and delivered a certificate of borrowing that the Plaintiff B will borrow 60,000 won with the interest rate of KRW 3% per month and the due date on March 2012. The Defendant signed the respective certificate of borrowing (hereinafter “each certificate of borrowing”).

(2) In addition, around 2012, the Defendant issued and delivered to the Plaintiff B a certificate of borrowing KRW 70 million (which appears to have been borrowed separately from the Plaintiff B, as the interest rate of KRW 1.5% and the due date of repayment on October 2012 (hereinafter “the instant certificate of borrowing”).

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant guaranteed F's obligation to repay the loan amount of KRW 40 million to Plaintiff A and 60 million to Plaintiff B, such as the contents of each of the loan certificates in this case, and also is presumed to have agreed with F to bear the obligation to repay the loan amount of KRW 70 million to Plaintiff B as in the contents of the loan certificates in this case. Thus, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the above loan amounts to the plaintiffs, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. (1) The summary of the claim is as to whether a contract for guarantee or joint and several liability was not established or the contract was revoked due to mistake and error (1). The defendant did not have any intent to guarantee the obligation as a surety with respect to each of the instant loan certificates. The plaintiff B, who was closely related to the F and the defendant, was found to the defendant, and each of the instant loans.