1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 39,409,332 and KRW 10,916,434 among them, from August 18, 2015 to the day of full payment.

1. The judgment on the cause of the claim that Nonparty B obtained a loan of KRW 15 million from Nonparty Samsung Capital Co., Ltd. for the purpose of purchasing a motor vehicle on August 7, 200, by fixing the loan period of KRW 60 million (the maturity date of the loan). The Defendant, at the time, has jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations. The Plaintiff acquired the above loan obligations from the Korea Asset Management Corporation through the Korea Asset Management Corporation. The Plaintiff received the aforementioned loan obligations before transfer from the Plaintiff. As of August 18, 2015, the above loan obligations remain in the interest of KRW 10,916,434 as of August 18, 2015, the principal amount of the loan obligations remain in the interest of KRW 9,218,065, interest rate of overdue interest of KRW 9,274,83 as of interest rate of KRW 17% per annum, or the interest rate of delay is not disputed between the parties, and the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the entire statement and the order of the Plaintiff.

2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not bear the joint and several liability for the above loan claim, and the signature stated in the column for joint and several liability joint and several liability column of Gap 7 (Agreement on Loan of Automobile Purchasers) is not the principal.

In this regard, the writing and the joint and several sureties who are presumed to be described B in the column of the applicant B in the column of the applicant B, are similar to the writing in which the defendant's personal information is stated in the column of the joint and several sureties.

However, there is no objective evidence to acknowledge this, and even if the Defendant’s signature was made pursuant to B, there is no dispute between the parties, or even if it was made pursuant to the overall purport of the entries and arguments as indicated in Gap’s 12-1 and 2, i.e., the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant’s seal imprint affixed on the signature of Gap 7, ② the Defendant at the time of the conclusion of the above loan agreement (the Defendant stated that the agreement was married on May 2004 at the second date for pleading). ③ The Plaintiff is the same as the complaint of this case.