1. Defendant Incorporated Co., Ltd. shall fully pay to the Plaintiff KRW 296,835,616 and its amount from February 4, 2017.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim is: (a) the Plaintiff loaned KRW 200 million to the Defendant Incorporated Incorporated Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”); (b) the repayment period of KRW 30.10 million on October 31, 2013; (c) the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum on December 31, 2014; and (d) the Defendant C jointly guaranteed the Defendant Company’s loan obligations on September 21, 2016; (b) the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million on December 23, 2016, and KRW 10 million on February 3, 2017 to the Plaintiff; and (c) the remainder is KRW 296,835,616 on February 3, 2017.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the leased principal and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from February 4, 2016 to the date of full payment.

2. Determination

(a) Applicable provisions to judgment on claims against the defendant company: Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment on deemed confession due to the absence of the defendant company);

B. Determination 1 as to the claim against Defendant C) Defendant C was appointed as the representative director of the Defendant Company on August 22, 2016, and such fact was recorded in the register of the Defendant Company on the same day.

B) Defendant C has left his seal imprint, certificate of personal seal impression, and passbook to the Defendant Company. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 7-3, 7-2, 1, and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the above loan loan debt, there is no dispute between the parties that the above loan debt was jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant C, and that the following stamp image following the name of Defendant C, which is the evidence No. 1 (Evidence) is based on the seal of Defendant C. However, there is no dispute between the parties. Meanwhile, the above evidence revealed in the above evidence, namely, the actual representative of the Defendant Company, Defendant C was D, and Defendant C lent only the name of the representative director at the request of the Plaintiff, and the actual duties of the Defendant Company were conducted by Defendant C. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the principal debt of the above joint and several sureties is against