A. On February 9, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs on the claim for reimbursement of remuneration (Seoul Northern District Court Decision 201Da15039) with the Plaintiffs, the Defendant and the Plaintiffs were jointly and severally paid KRW 30,00,000 to the Defendant by September 30, 2012. If the Plaintiffs fail to perform this, the above provision becomes null and void, and the Plaintiffs jointly and severally paid KRW 75,700,000 to the Defendant and the damages for delay from the following day to February 9, 2012.

B. After the mediation is completed, the Plaintiffs paid the Defendant KRW 6,00,000 in total six times each month from September 27, 2012 to February 28, 2013.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. On September 27, 2012, the Plaintiffs concluded a quasi-loan agreement with the Defendant stating that “The Plaintiffs shall pay KRW 1,000,000 per month interest on KRW 30,000,000,000 per month without setting the due date.” Accordingly, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 1,00,000 per month until February 28, 2013. As such, the Plaintiffs’ obligations against the Defendant following the adjustment do not exceed the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 30,00,00 per month from March 1, 2013 to the date of full payment.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the payment period of KRW 30,000,000 has been extended by the request of the plaintiff B until the end of December, 2012, but there is no fact that the contract for quasi-loan for consumption was concluded as alleged by the plaintiffs.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiffs asserted that the quasi-loan contract was concluded with the Defendant; (b) no disposal document exists; and (c) the Plaintiffs were unable to repay their obligations following the conciliation, respectively, 1-6 of the evidence No. 2.