1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 20,477,292 and KRW 20,123,89, out of which are paid to the plaintiff, from July 4, 2016 to the day of full payment.

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(However, ‘creditor' is considered as ‘Plaintiff' and ‘debtor' as ‘Defendant') / [based on recognition] entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserts that there was no signature or seal on the instant lease agreement, and there was no fact that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation therefrom. However, according to the evidence mentioned above and the evidence No. 6 (No. 6) of this case, it is recognized that the Defendant heard an explanation of the instant lease agreement from the telephone call with the Plaintiff’s employees on April 8, 2013, and stated that the obligation related thereto is jointly and severally guaranteed.

In addition, as seen below, the defendant is not subject to the special law for the protection of guarantor, and rather subject to Article 6-2 (3) of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation under the lease contract of this case

3) The former Special Act on the Protection of Surety (amended by Act No. 13125, Feb. 3, 2015 (amended by Act No. 13125, Feb. 4, 2016); hereinafter “Surety Protection Act”).

Article 3(1) provides that "a guarantee shall take effect only in the form of a document with the name and seal or signature of the doctor." However, the guarantor protection law excludes a guarantor to whom the guarantor protection law applies where the representative, director, etc. of the company bears a guaranteed obligation for the company's obligations (Article 2(1)(b)).

As long as the Defendant entered into a joint and several guarantee contract for the instant lease contract on the status of representative director B, a principal debtor, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have no direct signature and seal on the instant lease contract, and thus, it cannot be deemed to have become effective.

2. According to the conclusion, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the Disposition No. 1.