1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 329,240,271, and KRW 10,000,00 among them, from September 4, 2015 to July 2016.

From February 10, 2006 to June 10, 201, the Plaintiff asserted by the parties concerned lent a total of KRW 308,000,000 to Defendant C, and Defendant B prepared and delivered a performance note to the effect that Defendant C is responsible for and performed the obligation of Defendant C, thereby jointly and severally guaranteeing the obligation of Defendant C.

Defendant C repaid the total of KRW 252,300,000 on seven occasions from August 25, 2011 to July 17, 2009.

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of the principal and interest of the loan remaining after appropriation of the appropriation to the Plaintiff KRW 487,352,133, and the loan principal amount of KRW 308,00,000.

Defendant C’s assertion that Defendant C repaid the Plaintiff totaling KRW 408,662,00 from August 2008 to September 3, 2015, which exceeded the total amount of the loan principal and interest, and thus, Defendant C’s loan obligations against the Plaintiff all were extinguished.

Defendant B’s assertion did not know of the details of Defendant C’s debt, but did not prepare a statement of performance with the intent to jointly and severally guarantee only KRW 90,000,000, which is the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security established by Defendant B on the real estate owned by Defendant C.

The scope of guarantee by Defendant B shall be limited to KRW 90,000,000.

Defendant C paid 408,662,00 won exceeding the total amount of the principal and interest of the loan to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C’s loan obligations were extinguished. Accordingly, Defendant C’s loan obligations also extinguished.

Judgment

The Plaintiff’s private document rental against Defendant C is presumed to have been authentic when the Plaintiff’s signature, seal, or stamped on his claim against Defendant C (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, in a case where the originator of private document recognizes that he had a signature, seal, etc. on the private document in question, in other cases where the formation of a seal imprint portion, etc. is recognized, the entire document shall be deemed to have been reversed by a reflective document, barring special circumstances, such as re