1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 (a certificate of rent, and the fact that the Defendants signed and sealed, it is presumed that the entire document was authentic. Defendant B asserted that this document was signed and sealed in blank and that Defendant C was made at will without being delegated with the right to fill in blank from Defendant B, but the above assertion is without merit as seen in the following Paragraph 2.), Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 3 million from February 19, 2011 to March 201 of the same year to Defendant B, who was an agent of Defendant C, to whom he had a relationship with the Plaintiff, to pay KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff on June 19, 201 to May 17, 2012, and the Plaintiff’s urge the above Defendants to pay KRW 200,000 as a joint and several surety between Defendant C and Defendant C’s debt guarantee and Defendant C’s debt No. 21.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the debt amount of KRW 23 million based on the loan certificate of this case and the agreed parties and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. (1) The Defendants: (a) requested the Defendants to prepare only one copy of the loan certificate for the purpose of submitting the bank for the securing of the principal’s loan; (b) requested the Plaintiff to deliver to the Plaintiff the blank car certificate directly signed and sealed by Defendant B; (c) without granting any blank ticket; and (d) Defendant C arbitrarily delivered it to the Defendant C without granting any blank ticket; and (c) Defendant C arbitrarily delivered the instant blank car certificate to the Plaintiff.