2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

A. The Defendants and E decided to operate a game room business as a partnership business around March 2012.

Accordingly, the defendants invested in the right to use money and commercial buildings (the first floor of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu F building) and G invested in services, etc. The profits and losses from the same business are divided by the ratio of E4, 23 and D3, and the operation of the game room is primarily E.

B. On April 2012, E lent KRW 10,00,000 from the Plaintiff to raise funds for the operation of the said game room (hereinafter “instant loan”), and used this as the operating expenses of the said game room, such as the payment of wages to employees H, etc. of the said game room.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the fact that there is no clear dispute, the fact that Gap is deemed to have been led to a confession, the fact that Eul's evidence No. 1, Eul's evidence No. 1, the witness H of the first instance trial and the witness I of the trial, the purport of the whole

2. If the debt of a sales association is to be borne by an act which has been conducted as a commercial activity for all members, it is reasonable to authorize the joint and several liability of members in accordance with Article 57 (1) of the Commercial Act

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da6919, Mar. 13, 1998). Based on the above legal principle, the health stand in this case; the Defendants and E engaged in the above game room business; and as such, E’s money borrowed from the Plaintiff constitutes a partnership obligation of the above Dong company, which is the act of commercial activity (a supplementary commercial activity) for all its members; thus, E and the Defendants’ obligation to return loans owed to the Plaintiff is also a joint and several obligation.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the above loans of KRW 10,000,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 26, 2013 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

3. Conclusion.