1. Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 18% per annum from January 6, 2019 to the date of full payment.

1. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the claim against Defendant C on February 5, 2017 set the maturity of KRW 60 million to Defendant C on September 5, 2017 and lent KRW 1.5% per annum (18% per annum) to Defendant C on September 5, 2017 does not conflict between the parties.

On the other hand, on October 25, 2017, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 10 million out of the leased principal from Defendant C and interest by January 5, 2019.

According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 50 million and the damages for delay calculated at the agreed interest rate of 18% per annum from January 6, 2019 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the date of final payment of interest.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

A. On February 5, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted joint and several sureties’s assertion 1) leased KRW 60 million to Defendant C on the due date on September 5, 2017 and at 1.5% (18% per annum) of interest, and Defendant D guaranteed Defendant C’s obligation to borrow the borrowed money. 2) If Defendant C’s seal affixed to the relevant legal doctrine is printed out by his/her seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal is established, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is actually presumed to be based on the intention of the person who signed the document, and once the authenticity of the seal is presumed, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established. Once it is presumed that the seal affixed was made by a person other than the person who signed the document, the person who signed the document bears the burden of proving that the act of affixing the seal affixed was based on a legitimate title delegated by the person who signed the document.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831 Decided September 24, 2009) In light of the above legal principles, Gap evidence No. 1 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) revealed that it conforms to the above alleged facts in light of the above legal principles.

B The Plaintiff itself acknowledges that not only he received from Defendant C but also did not directly receive the Defendant D’s signature and seal at that time, and that is, Party A’s first and second.