1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 50,000,000 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from June 27, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff leased KRW 50 million to Defendant B on July 16, 2007 with the due date set on October 16, 2007, and the Defendant C guaranteed the Plaintiff’s debt on the same day.

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from June 27, 2017 to the date immediately after the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendants, as requested by the Plaintiff, as well as from June 27, 2017.

2. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants established a collateral security on the land owned by Defendant B in order to secure the above loan amount, and that the Plaintiff cancelled the said collateral security after the full repayment of the loan amount.

On the other hand, the defendants' above assertion purports that the above loan obligation was repaid by the defendants, and even according to the statement of 1-6 of the certificate of 1-6 with respect to whether the above loan obligation was repaid by the defendants, it can be acknowledged that the right to collateral security was cancelled on July 18, 2007 with respect to the land of 1,139 square meters and 5 square meters, which was owned by the defendant Eul-gun, Gangwon-gu, Gangwon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The right to collateral security was established in the future of the plaintiff on May 16, 2008. Since the cancellation of the right to collateral security does not necessarily mean that the right to collateral security was provided by the mortgagee and the right to collateral security was cancelled first without the extinguishment of the right to collateral security as alleged by the plaintiff, the above recognition alone is insufficient to confirm that the above right to collateral security was fully repaid, and there is no other evidence to support the above repayment.