1. The Defendants jointly and severally with E, as to KRW 73,265,135 and KRW 30,549,551 of the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 through 14, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant E and Defendant D to pay the money indicated in the order, barring any special circumstance.

B. As to this, Defendant C asserts that the stamp image affixed on the application form for change of conditions (Evidence A1) which is the basis for joint and several sureties is consistent with Defendant C’s stamp image but not Defendant C, and that there is no other joint and several sureties.

If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the holder of a title deed signed and sealed on a private document is presumed to have been made, barring any special circumstance, and once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the presumption of the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprinted by means of counter-proof that the act of signing and sealing according to the intention of the holder of the title deed is broken down

(2) The Majority Opinion argues that the presumption of the establishment of the authenticity was broken in light of the description of the evidence No. 16, and there is no sufficient evidence to deem that the presumption of the authenticity was broken in light of the description of evidence No. 16, and that the Defendant’s assertion was affixed without complying with the above Defendant’s intention as alleged in the above Defendant’s assertion.

The above defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion