A. Defendant B’s KRW 80,000,000 as well as 12% per annum from November 25, 2014 to November 9, 2016.

A. On December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 80,000,000 to Defendant B, including KRW 10,000,000, and KRW 70,000,000 on February 28, 2014, as the due date for reimbursement of KRW 12% per annum.

B. The Plaintiff, under Defendant C’s joint and several sureties, lent KRW 25,00,000 to Defendant B on September 25, 2014, as the due date for reimbursement of KRW 29,000 on December 29, 2014 and the interest rate of KRW 12% on a yearly basis.

C. The Defendants did not pay the principal and interest of the remainder of the borrowed loan with only the interest on the respective borrowed loan obligations up to October 2014.

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

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 80,00,000 as well as the amount of KRW 12% per annum from November 25, 2014 to November 9, 2016, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from the following day to the day of complete payment, and jointly and severally the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of KRW 25,00,00 per annum from November 25, 2014 to November 9, 2016, which is the last delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and each damages for delay at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

3. As to the determination of the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants: (a) committed an unlawful act by the Plaintiff’s ASEAN and Defendant B’s spouse; and (b) on January 2015, Defendant B and Nonparty B were liable for the said marriage arising from D; (c) provided that the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million with respect to the instant claim amount; and (d) agreed to reduce the amount of the obligation to pay KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff as the provider of the cause of the said marriage, and D agreed that the said amount of the loan would be repaid to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff; (b) therefore, the Defendants’ respective loan obligations were extinguished, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case should be dismissed.