1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 27, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the underlying facts, or according to the Gap evidence No. 1, on July 25, 2007, the defendant B prepared and delivered to the plaintiff a certificate of loan (the defendant B shall borrow KRW 50,000,000) stating that "the defendant B shall borrow KRW 50,000,00,00," and the debtor's "debtor" of the loan certificate of this case includes the name and resident registration number of the defendant C below, and the above part can be acknowledged as the facts written by the defendant B.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts of the above recognition of the claim against Defendant B, unless there are special circumstances, Defendant B shall pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 50,000,000 and damages for delay.

As to this, Defendant B alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff lent only KRW 30,00,000 after preparing the instant loan certificate. However, as long as the disposal document is recognized as its authenticity, the court should recognize the existence and content of the content as stated in the above, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content is denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da55456, Oct. 11, 1994). The evidence submitted by Defendant B alone is insufficient to deem that there is a counter-proof that it is obvious and acceptable to deny the entries in the loan amount of the instant loan certificate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, Defendant B’s above assertion is rejected.

B. The claim No. 1 (the loan certificate of this case) against Defendant C was submitted by the Plaintiff as a disposition document on the joint and several guarantee contract with Defendant C, and Defendant C asserted that the above disposition document was forged and there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the part of “Defendant C” out of the loan certificate of this case. Thus, the part against Defendant C out of the loan certificate of this case cannot be deemed to be effective against Defendant C, and otherwise, Defendant C against the Plaintiff of Defendant C.