1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and D are the mother and the fraud.

The Defendants and D are between themselves.

B. On January 26, 2015, the Defendants and D drafted a certificate of borrowing KRW 40,000,000 (No. 1; hereinafter “the instant certificate of borrowing”), and the content thereof are as follows.

However, the defendants' personal information under Paragraph 4 of the loan certificate of this case was written in writing by the defendants, and next, the defendants took their hand.

The loan certificate

1.Japan: Won 40,000,000 won (Won 40,000,000) shall borrow and agree to:

2. Date of repayment: April 30, 2015;

3. Primary method of payment: February 4 (in 2.00 million won): By April 30 (in 00 million won).

4. The debtor's number: B resident number: The debtor who is the joint and several debt sureties of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government: DG M on January 26, 2015: CI Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J.

C. On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 40,000,000 to Defendant C’s account.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Defendant B, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, prepared the instant loan certificate, and directly borrowed money from the Plaintiff, and Defendant C guaranteed the debt of the instant loan.

Therefore, Defendant B is a joint and several surety, and Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 15,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. The main points of the Defendants’ assertion D and the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed KRW 40,00,000 from D, and invested in the U.S. online business, upon D’s request by the head of D, the Defendants formally prepared and provided the instant loan certificate; and (b) Defendant C used the said KRW 40,000,000 as D and the Plaintiff’s investment amount; and (c) the Defendants did not have any obligation to repay the instant loan amount.

3. As long as the formation of the judgment document is accepted as the authenticity, the court shall have no clear and acceptable reflective evidence to deny the contents of the statement.