1. The Plaintiff; Defendant B’s KRW 15,700,000; Defendant C’s KRW 26,000,000; and each of the said money from October 16, 2014.

1. Part of the claim against the defendant B

A. As to the cause of the claim, the fact that Defendant B prepared and borrowed the loan certificate (Evidence A 1) on December 26, 2009, stating that “The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 57,500,000 from the Plaintiff at 2% per annum and on December 30, 2012,” and that “the Plaintiff borrowed from the Plaintiff on December 30, 2012,” did not conflict between the parties.

Thus, barring special circumstances, Defendant B is obligated to pay 15,70,000 won [the above 57,500,000 won and the remainder which remains after deducting 14,800,000 won that the Plaintiff sought payment from Defendant C, and 14,80,000 won that the Plaintiff received from Defendant C] as requested by the Plaintiff, as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 16, 2014 to the day of full payment after the day of service of payment order] as requested by the Plaintiff.

B. The summary of the argument by Defendant B (1) is as follows: ① A person who borrows money from the actual Plaintiff is D; the Plaintiff believed D to be insufficient; thus, the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate (Evidence A 1) in the name of Defendant B; and Defendant B prepared the above loan certificate.

Therefore, the defendant B's expression of intent to bear the debt due to the loan certificate is invalid by a false declaration of agreement.

② Part of the Plaintiff’s claim amount D repaid to the Plaintiff.

(2) First of all, as to Defendant B’s assertion, even based on Defendant B’s assertion itself, the Plaintiff testified to the effect that, in comparison to the case where D was unable to believe D’s ability to repay, the Plaintiff lent money to D on the condition that D bears the obligation of Defendant B, and D testified that “the Defendant B guaranteed the obligation of borrowed money.”

In addition, Defendant B paid part of the interest on the loan to the Plaintiff.

In light of these facts, it is mutually understood that the Plaintiff and the Defendant B merely indicate the Defendant B as an obligor in the form of a loan certificate and do not bear all obligations.