1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 72,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 26, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 13, 2015, Nonparty C, a South Korean employee of the Defendant, was employed in the Plaintiff company for the purpose of car sales, etc. and submitted to the Plaintiff a written financial guarantee under the name of the Defendant that, on behalf of the Defendant, the Plaintiff, “if C violates management regulations, out-of-the-counter regulations, orders, instructions, etc. while in office, or caused property damage to his/her company due to intention or negligence, he/she shall jointly and severally compensate for the amount of damage incurred thereby” (hereinafter “instant financial guarantee”).

B. C borrowed KRW 260,000,000 from the Plaintiff and engaged in a business such as purchasing an accident vehicle, but failed to pay the said amount in full, and the remainder of the borrowed amount currently remains is KRW 72,00,000.

【No dispute over the grounds for recognition】 The evidence No. 1 (a written financial guarantee, the forgery of the above documents or the assertion of an unauthorized representation shall be judged separately below), Eul evidence No. 1 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff of the party's assertion is liable to guarantee the defendant pursuant to the guarantee contract of this case under the guarantee contract of this case (hereinafter "guarantee contract of this case"). Even if C without the authority, the plaintiff sought to pay the guaranteed debt amount of KRW 72,00,000 to the defendant who is the guaranteed debt, and the delay damages for this reason on the ground that C has a justifiable reason to believe that the right to contract of the above guarantee contract of this case has been established without the authority, and as to this, the defendant made the judgment of the court below to believe that C transferred the vehicle name to the defendant, and issued the certificate of the personal seal impression and the certificate of taxation to C, but C made the letter of this case under the name of the defendant without the authority by forging arbitrarily forging forged the seal of the defendant, and thus, the guarantee contract of this case is null and void, even if the above contract is valid, according