1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 40,000,000 and the Defendants B from December 20, 2003 to February 18, 2014.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap 1 through 7, the plaintiff extended a total of KRW 40 million from around 2002 to December 2003 to the defendant Eul, but the defendant Eul did not repay the borrowed money. ② The plaintiff and the defendant Eul agreed to repay the above loan amount of KRW 40 million by December 19, 2003, and written the loan certificate (the "the loan certificate of this case" hereinafter) and each letter, and ③ the defendant Eul, the spouse of the defendant Eul at the time, agreed to stand joint and several surety for the above obligation of the defendant Eul and signed and sealed it on the joint and several surety column of the loan certificate of this case.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 40 million and/or KRW 40 million from December 20, 2003, which is the day following the repayment date, to the date on which a duplicate of the instant complaint was served on each of the Defendants (Defendant B, February 18, 2014; Defendant C, February 22, 2014), 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. As to the Defendant C’s assertion, the Defendant C asserted that there was no seal affixed on the joint and several sureties of the instant loan certificate, and that the authenticity of the instant loan certificate was made.

However, in full view of the purport of the entire argument in each of the above evidence, it is presumed that the signature affixed to the above loan certificate is the seal imprint affixed to the defendant C. Therefore, the establishment of the above loan certificate is presumed.

Therefore, Defendant C’s assertion of the above evidence is not accepted, while this court tried to proceed with the written appraisal procedure to verify whether the name, address, etc. of Defendant C stated in the joint and several surety column of the above loan certificate is written as Defendant C’s own pen. To this end, the submission of written evidence to Defendant C and the submission thereof.