1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 70,000,000 to the Plaintiff and Defendant B with respect thereto from August 31, 2019, and Defendant C.

1. Case summary and judgment

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements Nos. 1, 2, and 2-1, and 2-2, Defendant B borrowed KRW 70,00,000 from the Plaintiff on March 27, 2017 as the due date for payment on August 29, 2017; Defendant C guaranteed the Defendant B’s above loan obligation against the Plaintiff on June 26, 2019 (the Defendant B asserted that the above loan certificate was written at his/her discretion regardless of his/her own intent, but, inasmuch as the above loan certificate was withdrawn from the seal of Defendant B, the nominal owner of the above loan certificate, there is no dispute between the parties, the Defendant C, who is liable for the above loan obligation with the Defendant B, shall not be deemed to have submitted the above loan certificate with the intent of the Defendant B at the time when the loan was written, and the Defendant C, who is obligated to submit the above loan certificate to the Plaintiff on June 26, 2019.

Meanwhile, Defendant C alleged that it repaid KRW 30,000,000 out of the above loan (guarantee) obligation, but it is insufficient to recognize the above repayment solely based on the statement in Eul evidence No. 1 (the details of bank transactions in which Defendant C remitted total of KRW 30,000 to the Plaintiff on March 30, 2018 and April 12, 2018, prior to the date of the above guarantee) and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

C. Therefore, the Defendants jointly have the duty to pay jointly to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 70,00,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 31, 2019 to the date of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint (Defendant B is Defendant B, and Defendant C is Defendant C, September 10, 2019) upon the Plaintiff’s request.

2. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.