1. Defendant B’s annual period from June 10, 2014 to the date when the instant judgment became final and conclusive, with respect to KRW 77,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

1. The fact that Defendant B borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff on May 25, 2009 on the claim against Defendant B, and that Defendant B agreed to pay the said money by December 30, 2013 does not conflict between the parties, and that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 23,00,000 among the said money.

According to the above, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 7,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from June 10, 2014 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C Co., Ltd.

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant company") guaranteed the debt of the defendant B, the defendant company bears the debt of each of the defendant B.

However, there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of No. 1 (Evidence) containing the Defendant Company’s guarantee intention, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. Next, although Defendant B, as the head of the management support office of the Defendant Company, is known to be practically exercising the authority of Nonparty D, who is a director of the Defendant Company, as a director of the Defendant Company, and the Defendants denied such fact, the Defendant Company should be held liable for the guarantee of this case under the doctrine of expression representation under Article 126

(B) The Defendant Company had Defendant B use the Defendant Company’s seal imprint certificate, seal imprint certificate, business registration certificate, etc. with the Defendant Company’s seal imprint certificate, and exercised its representative authority of the Company D, and performed the instant guarantee act as part of such business execution. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff did not have such power of representation and could not know it).