A. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for KRW 107,150,000 and Defendant B with respect thereto from July 22, 2014.

A. From March 25, 2004 to May 9, 2014, Defendant B engaged in clothing retail business with the trade name “E” in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

B. The Plaintiff has been engaged in money transactions, such as lending money from February 201 to February 2014, while operating singing rooms in the vicinity of Defendant B’s clothes to Defendant B, and paying a deposit.

C. Although Defendant C was married with Defendant B, Defendant C divorced on May 21, 2014, and F and G are children of the Defendants.

On November 6, 2015, Defendant B was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime that he/she received a total of KRW 9,7150,00 from the Plaintiff from March 12, 2012 to April 28, 2014 without any intent or ability to repay in the case of fraud in Seoul Central District Court 2014Da709, 2015Ma795, and 1142 (Consolidation) and received a total of KRW 9,715,00 from March 12, 2012 to the Plaintiff, and both the prosecutor and the Defendant were appealed from the Seoul Central District Court 2015No4490 on November 6, 2015, and the above judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive at that time.

E. Defendant B filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption from liability with the Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter “instant application for bankruptcy and exemption from liability”) under Article 564(1)3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, on February 15, 2016, on the ground that the court made a false statement about the status of property before the court, Defendant B was determined not to grant exemption from liability pursuant to Article 564(1)3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 23, Eul 6, 7, 8 (including branch numbers if there are various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The loan or the claim for damages against Defendant B (A) are primarily based on the leased principal that the Plaintiff had not lent to the Defendant and has not been repaid to the Defendant. In view of the interest accrued thereafter, the principal and interest on the loan that Defendant B must pay to the Plaintiff is the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Hadan4924, supra.