1. The Defendants shall not exceed KRW 79,921,162, and KRW 31,926,191, jointly and severally, to E and the Plaintiff within the scope of KRW 117,00,00.

F Co., Ltd. entered into a loan agreement with E on January 10, 2012 with a loan amount of KRW 90 million, overdue interest rate of KRW 29 million, and KRW 117,00,000 for the loan principal and interest of KRW 117,00,00 for the loan principal and interest of the E on the same day; the Defendants and G jointly and severally guaranteed the loan amount of KRW 117,00,000 for the loan principal and interest of the E on May 2, 2018; F Co., Ltd. transferred the loan principal and interest of the F Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff on May 2, 2018; notified E of the transfer; and the fact that there remains 31,926,191 for the loan principal and interest of KRW 79,921,162 on November 8, 2018.

In accordance with the above facts, the Defendants, a joint and several surety obligor, jointly and severally with E, are obligated to pay interest for arrears calculated at the rate of 29% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate from November 15, 2018 to the date of full payment, as requested by the Plaintiff, as to the Plaintiff’s total amount of principal and interest of KRW 79,921,162, and the principal of the loan, within the limit of KRW 31,926,191, which is the maximum amount of loan guarantee, within the limit of KRW 117,00,00,000, which is the aggregate amount of principal and interest of the loan, to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’

As to this, Defendant C entered into a contract for the purchase of the foregoing vehicle of beco truck, but the above truck was sold to a third party, and then the third party is liable for the above loan, and the above loan obligation is overdue prior to the payment order of this case.

Since it was unaware of the existence of a balance or remaining, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted. Defendant D asserted to the effect that Defendant C merely delivered documents without hearing any content by requesting documents, such as a certificate of personal seal impression, a certificate of seal imprint, etc., and that Defendant C did not know that the said documents were to be used in the vehicle installment loan.

There is no evidence to acknowledge each of the above arguments of the Defendants.