1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 50 million and the Defendant Company from January 1, 2017.

1. Case summary and key issue

A. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband D (the Plaintiff’s husband’s expression) lent KRW 50 million to Defendant C or Defendant C in cash or passbook.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff’s side borrowed the Defendant Company to operate the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant C.

With regard to the assertion that the defendant C was the first loan certificate of No. 1, it is argued that the defendant C was a personal loan regardless of the defendant corporation.

(A) No. 1-1 is the plaintiff's arbitrary use of the seal of the defendants. In other words, the defendant C is the person who is expected to pay for the plaintiff's claim, and the defendant company is arguing that there is no fact of borrowing.

2.In full view of the facts recognized by Gap evidence 1-1-7 (including paper numbers) and the whole purport of the pleading, the following facts may be recognized:

On July 11, 2016, Defendant C established and managed the Defendant Company with the Plaintiff as its representative director.

B. The representative of the Defendant Company was changed as follows:

In-house directors on July 11, 2016, Plaintiff 1, representative director F on August 4, 2016, representative director F on August 23, 2016, representative director D (Plaintiff’s husband) on August 23, 2016, and representative director G on November 18, 2016.

C. On September 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) the Defendant Company was the debtor; and (b) received a certificate of loan borrowed jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant C.

(A) 1- The authenticity is presumed to be established by the Defendants’ seal impressions. The Defendants asserted that the seals of the Defendants in the Defendant Company’s office were forged at will by the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. The mere fact that D, the Plaintiff’s husband, is written as the representative director cannot be readily concluded to have been forged. The loan period: (a) the Defendant Company Representative D borrowed 50 million won from the Plaintiff on August 1, 2016 or December 31, 2016; and (b) Defendant C borrowed 50 million won from the Plaintiff on December 1, 2016.