1. The Defendant is jointly and severally and severally with the Plaintiff as to KRW 60,747,96 and KRW 30,460,020 among them, from August 27, 2016.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the overall purport of the argument in this Court’s verification, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Nonparty B on March 13, 2013 to discuss that the loans shall be repaid in installments for 48 months from April 8, 2013 to March 8, 2017, with the amount of loans KRW 75,00,000,00 per annum, interest rate of loans KRW 19.9% per annum, and interest rate of delayed interest rate of KRW 29% per annum. Nonparty C and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations; Nonparty B lost a benefit under Article 8 of the Framework Agreement on Credit Transactions from June 10, 2013 to the repayment of loans; and the remaining loans obligations as of August 26, 2016 remain as at the interest rate of KRW 60,74,97,96, 306, 3076, 3078).

According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 60,747,96 won and 30,460,020 won among them at the rate of 29% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate from August 27, 2016 to the date of full payment.

2. As to the above joint and several sureties, the defendant asserts that there was no such joint and several sureties, but the authenticity is presumed to have been established due to the lack of dispute over the defendant's stamp image portion of the evidence Nos. 1 (a loan application, a written agreement). In addition, the defendant voluntarily stated that he received a request from a third party for a guarantee of mispersation and transferred a certificate of seal impression and a copy of resident registration; the "D", the defendant's telephone number stated in the above loan application and written agreement, is the telephone number actually used by the defendant; and the voice of the recording file (a evidence No. 4) recorded in the process of confirming the plaintiff's loan application and the intent for joint and several sureties, can be sufficiently recognized by the defendant, and thus, the defendant's above assertion

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.