1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is enforced on February 14, 2019 by the Seoul Eastern District Court 2019j303.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant, around December 17, 2017, lent KRW 60 million to C, and KRW 50 million around August 22, 2018, respectively, lent KRW 110 million to C, and the Plaintiff’s attached thereto, asserted that C had jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations, filed an application for payment order against C and the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 110 million and delay damages. The Defendant received the payment order (this Court No. 2019j303, Feb. 14, 2019) as of February 14, 2019.

The instant payment order was finalized on March 5, 2019.

B. On December 17, 2017, C borrowed KRW 60 million from the Defendant, and without obtaining the Plaintiff’s consent on joint and several sureties, C voluntarily stated “A(parents) and “A” in the loan certificate without obtaining the Plaintiff’s consent on the joint and several sureties,” and “A” and then affixed the Plaintiff’s seal produced in advance and delivered it to the Defendant.

C. C, around August 22, 2018, borrowed KRW 50 million from the Defendant from the Defendant, and, without obtaining the consent on joint and several sureties from the Plaintiff and his mother D, would be liable for the surety A, D (M), and A (M) civil and criminal liability of the parent of the Plaintiff and his/her mother in the loan certificate without obtaining the consent on the joint and several sureties, even if the Songpa-gu building owned by C (A) is seized.

After stating “ arbitrarily”, the Plaintiff and D’s seal produced in advance was affixed and delivered to the Defendant.

C was indicted by the above act as to fabrication and uttering of private documents, fabrication of private person, etc., and was sentenced to a judgment of two years of suspended execution on July 3, 2020 (this Court Decision 2019No4143) and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 through 18, 23, and 25, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, each of the above loan certificates cannot be used as evidence as to the fact that the plaintiff guaranteed C's debt to the defendant, and No. 1.