A. As to Defendant A: 507,178,612 won and 202,871,445 won among them:

B. Defendant B is Defendant A.

A. The plaintiff on 11, 2007

8. A loan of KRW 200,000,000 to Defendant B was made on May 8, 2008 by setting the interest rate of KRW 2% (30% per annum for interest) and due date of reimbursement of KRW 8, 2008.

B. On June 16, 2008, Defendant A, the mother of Defendant B, agreed to pay 21,000,000 won (interest interest rate of 30%) at interest rate of 12% (interest rate of 30%) to the Plaintiff on the said loan actually used by the Plaintiff, and set up a notarial deed of the same content as the loan for consumption with the same interest rate of 11,00,000,000 won (interest rate of 30%).

C. Thereafter, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff KRW 10,00,000 on April 21, 2009, KRW 10,000 on May 7, 2009, KRW 20,000 on June 11, 2009, KRW 10,030,000 on July 23, 2009, KRW 10,000 on September 23, 2009, KRW 10,000 on September 2, 2009, KRW 5,000,000 on October 16, 200, KRW 10,000 on October 21, 209, KRW 10,000 on October 5, 200, KRW 00 on November 5, 2009, and KRW 000 on November 5, 2009.

[Evidence Evidence] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay the loan of this case and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

As examined in the above facts, in light of the background leading up to Defendant A’s preparing a notarial deed of a loan for consumption, the relationship between the Defendants, etc., the Defendants’ obligation prohibited from borrowing can be deemed as quasi-joint and several liability.

B. Furthermore, as to the amount, the Defendants were examined as to the amount of the above 1-C.

Since there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant A agreed to pay the principal with the money paid as stated in the subsection, there is a difference between the interest on the loan of the Defendant A with the greater interest on the principal, the interest on the loan of the Defendant A with the higher interest on the principal, and the loan of the Defendant A remains in KRW 202,871,445 with the repayment of the principal on November 5, 2009, and the loan of the Defendant B remains in KRW 200,000 with the principal.

(2) Defendant B borrowed KRW 200,000 from the Plaintiff, and Defendant A’s principal is 211,00,000,000,000 calculated by adding the interest to the said principal amount of KRW 200,000,000. Thus, Defendant B’s principal is limited to KRW 200,000,000.

Therefore, it is true.