1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 38,00,000 and Defendant C with respect thereto from May 16, 2019, and Defendant D with respect thereto.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 23, 2015, the Plaintiff leased KRW 23,000,00 to Defendant C upon receipt of the request from Defendant C to lend the trial expenses of the former husband E. On February 23, 2015, and the Defendant C prepared a cash custody certificate (Evidence A-1-1) stating that “The above amount shall be kept in cash on February 23, 2015 (23,000,000).” At the bottom of the said cash custody certificate, the Plaintiff signed and sealed the signature of Defendant C and the signature of Defendant D, who is the wife, as of the date of the above cash custody certificate, and then, at that end, agreed to guarantee the completion of the F trial.”

B. On February 26, 2018, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000,00 to Defendant C, and completed a cash custody certificate (Evidence A 2-1) stating that “The cash custody certificate C,00,000,000,000,000,000,000” from Defendant C was borrowed on February 26, 2018. On the side of the said cash custody certificate, Defendant C’s signature and seal is affixed, and Defendant C’s signature and seal is affixed on the side of the entry “sureties” at its bottom.

[Ground for recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including a serial number, unless otherwise specified; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff lent the sum of KRW 38,000,000 to Defendant C twice as above, and Defendant D guaranteed each of the above loans to Defendant C’s Plaintiff. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 38,00,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is recognized that Defendant C borrowed each of the above money from the Plaintiff.

However, in the preparation of each of the above cash custody certificates, the defendant D merely signed at the request of the defendant C to confirm the loan of the defendant C, and does not have signed with the meaning of guaranteeing the debt of the loan to the plaintiff of the defendant C.

The plaintiff demanded the defendant D to prepare each of the above cash custody certificates.