A. On the ground that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to repay KRW 24,500,000, out of C’s goods price obligations, the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and the Defendant seeking the payment of loans under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Da80590. On February 16, 2006, the judgment of February 16, 2006 that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly and severally paid the amount of KRW 23,50,000 and the amount of money calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 11, 2006 to the date of full payment” was handed down on March 31, 2006.

B. On May 2006, the Plaintiff paid KRW 23,500,000 to large-scale unemployment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Unless there are special circumstances in determining the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay 11,750,000 won out of 23,50,000 won discharged by the Plaintiff (in the absence of special agreement, 11,750,000 won exceeding the portion to be borne by the Plaintiff (in the absence of special agreement), and as sought by the Plaintiff, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from June 1, 2006 to April 6, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

In regard to this, the defendant is the principal debtor of the obligation for the large-scale unemployment as the actual owner of the age club, and the defendant, who was an accounting employee, signed a promissory note with the plaintiff's meeting and pressure, cannot bear the obligation, but the defendant's assertion is not accepted since there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

3. The plaintiff's request for the conclusion is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.