1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 339,00,000 and KRW 20,000 among them, from October 20, 2012 to October 20, 2012.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion received a request from the Defendants who jointly operate the D Hospital (hereinafter “D Hospital”) to lend the operating funds of the said hospital. The Plaintiff transferred a total of KRW 339,000,000 to the head of the passbook opened in the name of the Defendant B, the business entity of the instant hospital, as shown in the attached Table of Loans, as indicated in the attached Table, to the said money. The Plaintiff was issued and delivered a loan certificate with Defendant B as the principal debtor and Defendant C as the joint and several surety.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 339,00,000,000 for the hospital operation funds borrowed from the Plaintiff and the delay damages therefor.

B. The summary of Defendant B’s assertion does not dispute the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Defendant B merely lent the name of the proprietor of the instant hospital to Defendant C, and did not operate the instant hospital as a partnership business, and there is no fact that the Plaintiff borrowed the operating funds of the said hospital from the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. In full view of all the following circumstances in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the defendants operated the hospital of this case as a partnership business, and the plaintiff lent a total of KRW 339,000,000 to the defendant's partner fee.

① Defendant B asserts that Defendant C forged the seal in Defendant B’s name, and that Defendant C prepared and proposed the loan certificate (No. 1-1-1) to the Plaintiff.

However, according to the records of this case, the seal affixed on the name of Defendant B’s “Defendant B” may be recognized as the seal affixed and used by Defendant B to the original department of the instant hospital, and when the seal affixed to the private document, the document is presumed to be authentic.

Therefore, Defendant B’s above defense of evidence is without merit.

(2) The same trade agreement (No. 1) entered into between the Defendants shall be set up by the Defendants.