A. The facts of recognition are deemed to have been led to confession pursuant to Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff and the Defendant A, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant B pursuant to each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the following facts are recognized, and there is no counter-proof.

(1) On August 22, 2008, the Plaintiff granted a loan of KRW 86,660,700 to the non-party Switzerland Co., Ltd. with a joint and several guarantee of the Defendants at the rate of 36 months (payment method of principal and interest), interest rate of 13.4% per annum, and overdue interest rate of 25% per annum.

(2) Subsequent to the foregoing case’s loan, the Plaintiff terminated the said loan agreement, and on June 20, 2014, the outstanding principal and interest of the loan as of June 20, 2014 is KRW 122,521,471 (principal interest, KRW 57,215,159, KRW 65,306,312).

B. According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from June 21, 2014 to the date following the base date for calculating the principal and interest of the loan principal, out of the outstanding principal and interest of KRW 122,521,471, and the amount of such money, which is 57,215,159, which is the principal and interest of the loan, to the full payment rate of 25% per annum.

2. As to the determination of Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B, Inc., was a company operating a business with himself/herself, Nonparty C, D, and Defendant A, etc., and Defendant B, upon liquidation of a business relationship between the said partners, agreed to settle accounts with the rest of the partners other than himself/herself to bear the obligations arising from the business. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with. According to each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, according to the fact that there was a settlement agreement as alleged by Defendant B and D on September 23, 2008, it is recognized that there was a settlement agreement as alleged by Defendant B and D, but the validity of the settlement agreement concluded between Defendant B and D did not have any title to the Plaintiff, who is not a party to the said agreement. Thus, the above assertion by Defendant B is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's conclusion of this case against the defendants.