A. Defendant A: 12% per annum from April 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015; and 12% per annum from September 1, 2015 to September 1, 2015. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26508, Sep. 1, 2015>

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

(b) (1) Defendant A, G: Judgment by each service by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (2) by Defendant C, D, E, and F: Decision by each confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. The facts in the separate sheet for the determination of the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap 1 through 15 (including the provisional number). As such, the defendant B is jointly liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the tort in conjunction with the remaining defendants.

Therefore, Defendant B, in collaboration with the remaining Defendants, has a duty to pay the Plaintiff the amount of subrogated payment of KRW 45,579,095 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from April 1, 2014 to March 18, 2016, which is the day following the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B asserts that the scope of his responsibility should be limited, as there were occupational negligence in breach of the duty of due care of a good manager, such as where the role shared by himself was limited, and where an employee in charge of lending a financial institution did not visit the site to confirm lease and employment.

However, it is not permissible for a person who intentionally committed a tort by taking advantage of the victim's care to claim for the reduction of his/her responsibility on the ground of the victim's care. Meanwhile, taking liability for a joint tort is not to seek damages individually from each individual's act but to pursue the responsibility for a joint tort jointly committed by the perpetrator. Therefore, the joint tort liability for damages caused by the joint tort is held.