1. For the principal obligor B on August 26, 2013, the Plaintiff’s sathof loan Co., Ltd.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants are loan companies registered under the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users.

B. The Plaintiff, from March 2013 to November 2013, 2013, worked as the rest area for the designated confessions, and around August 2013, upon having requested the Plaintiff to guarantee the Plaintiff by having the Plaintiff borrow money as the Plaintiff requires money, and the Plaintiff promised to guarantee the loan to B.

C. B entered into each principal obligation contract with the Defendants, which forms the basis for the guaranteed liability of KRW 5,560,000, based on the joint and several guarantee contract for the principal debtor B as of August 26, 2013, and borrowed KRW 4,000 each from the Defendants, respectively.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion did not affix his name and seal or sign on each of the contracts of this case.

The letters written in each of the above surety obligations are written by B, and B knows that B knows the plaintiff's letters.

Therefore, since the special law for the protection of guarantor is null and void, the plaintiff seeks confirmation of invalidity of each guarantee obligation against the defendants.

B. (1) Determination (1) Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety(s) of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety(s) [Article 3 of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety(s) was newly established under the Civil Act on February 3, 2015 (Article 428-2 of the Civil Act) and deleted, but also applies to each of the guaranteed obligations contracts of this case according to the Addenda] provides that “A guarantee shall take effect when the doctor expresses his name and seal or signature in writing.

As such, the surety’s name and seal is affixed to the expression of guarantee.