A. On May 31, 2005, the Plaintiff and the Defendants drafted a loan certificate (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) and the main contents are as follows.

Article 1: The Plaintiff loaned KRW 600,000 (hereinafter “instant money”) to the Defendants under an agreement below the difference, and the Defendants borrowed this.

Article 2:The interest on Article 1 shall be 10% per annum on the principal, and shall be repaid in lump sum on May 31 of each year.

Article 3:The profit portion for the investment amount shall be distributed in 1/3 each.

B. The Defendants remitted to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million on May 29, 2006, and KRW 300 million on June 2, 2006, and repaid to the Plaintiff the principal of KRW 300 million.

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

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the facts as seen earlier, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 10 million won per annum from June 1, 2005 to December 24, 2015, which is the day following the date of the loan, and the rate of 10% per annum from June 1, 2005 to December 24, 2015, which is the date of the instant sentencing, and the amount of interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day

(Plaintiff is claiming for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum, but the provision on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings is amended and enforced on October 1, 2015, where the pleading is closed after October 1, 2015, the interest rate of 15% per annum shall be applied. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion in excess

Defendant B’s assertion and its determination are acknowledged that Defendant B affixed the instant loan certificate, but the instant money was lent by Defendant C from the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant C is not Defendant B, but Defendant C, but Defendant C. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the repayment liability, and only for the reasons as alleged above.