A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant B agreed to return KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff on March 7, 2014, while lending money from the Plaintiff, on October 25, 2014, while taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the entire document is presumed to have been authentic, as there is no dispute over the part on the part of the Defendants’ signature and seal. The Defendants asserted that this document was written by the Plaintiff’s coercion and the Plaintiff voluntarily stated the amount column. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Defendant B’s husband’s joint and several surety on the same day can be acknowledged.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 150 million and delay damages.

B. The Defendants asserted that they borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff, not only KRW 150 million, but also KRW 50 million.

However, as seen earlier, the authenticity of No. 1 (money borrowed certificate) as a disposal document is recognized, and there is no clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the contents of the statement, and thus, it is recognized that the agreement for the return of borrowed money and the joint and several sureties asserted by the Plaintiff is recognized.

2. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants paid KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff as to the Defendants’ defense of payment. As such, the Defendants’ defense of payment did not conflict between the parties and the Defendants’ defense of payment that Defendant C paid the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 3 million from March 11, 2015 to May 13, 2015.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for dispute as to the existence and scope of the Defendants’ obligations from October 26, 2014, which is the day following the due date for repayment for the remainder of the borrowed amount of KRW 147 million to the Plaintiff, to the extent that it is reasonable for the Defendants to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligations. The Defendants are fully repaid from the following day to September 23, 2015, which is the date of this decision.