1. The defendant shall be jointly and severally with C to the plaintiff 150,000,000 won and the interest thereon from October 22, 2008 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff came to know about C around 2002 and thereafter lent money to C several times.

On July 20, 2008, the Plaintiff agreed to adjust the loan amount of KRW 150 million with C on July 20, 2008. On the same day, C shall pay to the Plaintiff the loan certificate of KRW 150 million with the annual interest rate of KRW 30 million (hereinafter referred to as “the loan certificate of this case”).

B) The Defendant, the mother of C, at the time of drawing up the instant loan certificate, jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff. C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against C to the Seoul Eastern District Court 2015Hu6961, and the said payment order was finalized on April 9, 2015. [Grounds for recognition] A’s certificate (the instant loan certificate, and the court’s appraisal commission as to appraiser D) No. 1 of this case is recognized as identical to the Defendant’s unmanned, and thus, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been formed. The authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established. The Plaintiff’s testimony by the witness, the testimony by the court of this case, and each of the financial transaction information replys to the Bank and the National Bank as a whole.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay interest at the rate of 30% per annum according to the agreement from October 22, 2008 to the date of full payment, excluding interest for 94 days (from July 20, 2008 to October 21, 2008) paid to the plaintiff, jointly and severally with C, as a joint and several surety for the debt of this case, and for the person who was paid to the plaintiff as a joint and several surety for the debt of this case.

B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant guarantee agreement is null and void, since the Defendant did not have a health condition to engage in monetary transactions as a result of the occurrence of dementia around 2008.

The written evidence Nos. 1 and 7 alone entered into the instant guarantee agreement with the Defendant under the status of having no mental capacity due to dementia.