1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 530,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 30, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

(a) the part as to Defendant B of the grounds for the attachment to the indication of the claim

(b) Judgment made by the confession of applicable provisions of Acts (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. As to the assertion of joint and several sureties, the Plaintiff asserts that, through the letter of performance (No. 4; hereinafter “instant performance letter”) dated October 20, 2015, Defendant C has a joint and several obligation for KRW 400 million among the loan obligations against Defendant B to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the obligations under the said performance letter.

In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image next to the defendant C’s name will be the defendant C among the statement of execution of this case, but it is true that the act of affixing the seal was conducted by the defendant C, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant B had the authority to affix the seal of the defendant C as above. Thus, the statement of execution of this case, which seems consistent with the plaintiff’s above assertion, cannot be used as evidence because its authenticity is not proven.

Furthermore, the remainder of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to admit the Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant C guaranteed the joint and several liability of KRW 400 million among the loan obligations against Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of expression representation, even if the Plaintiff received the letter of performance of this case from Defendant B as joint and several sureties, the Plaintiff believed that Defendant C had a legitimate authority to act for the Defendant, and there was a reasonable ground to believe as such, and accordingly, Defendant C has a duty to pay the Plaintiff the obligation under the above letter of performance in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

In this regard, an expression agent who has exceeded the authority of Article 126 of the Civil Code.