1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 22,102,309 and KRW 21,900,900 among them, from October 2, 2014 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 5, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 29,500,000 out of the vehicle purchase price to B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) at 36 months of the loan period, the interest rate of 6.9% per annum, and the overdue interest rate of 24% per annum.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

In the loan agreement of this case as the representative director B, the defendant's name is written in the joint and several sureties column, and the defendant's seal is affixed next thereto.

C. B lost the benefit of October 1, 2014 due to the failure to perform the obligation to pay principal and interest under the instant loan agreement. According to the instant loan agreement, if the benefit of time is lost, the remaining principal and interest in arrears were to be repaid at one time.

The loan obligations of this case remaining until October 1, 2014 are KRW 22,102,309 (principal KRW 21,900,903 among them).

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the defendant's seal impression is affixed to the column of joint and several sureties of the loan agreement of this case, and the authenticity of the entry in the column of joint and several sureties is presumed to have been established, the defendant, as a joint and several sureties of the loan of this case, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff as a joint and several sureties of the loan of this case the amount of KRW 22,102,309 remaining as of October 1, 2014 and the amount of KRW 21,90,900 as of the principal amount, 24% per annum from October 2, 2014 to the date of full payment.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant issued a certificate of seal impression to B employee C to retire the representative director, and C commercial affairs used it for the instant loan agreement without the Defendant’s consent.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the loan agreement of this case was not prepared or sealed, and that the joint and several guarantee agreement is not effective against the plaintiff since the defendant did not consent to the joint and several guarantee or granted the power of representation to the business entity C.

The defendant's assertion is recognized.