A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in the business of collecting and supplying recyclables with the trade name of “D,” and the Defendants are engaged in the business of exporting recyclables in the trade name of “E.”

B. On October 2, 2016, the Plaintiff had a claim in the amount of KRW 250 million, including the outstanding amount of money and loans on the goods supplied to the Defendants during the said period, and interest thereon (the Defendant led to the confession of the said fact on the first date for pleading. Although the allegations to the contrary are asserted thereafter, it is not reasonable to recognize that the confession was contrary to the truth, and it is difficult to recognize that the confession was caused by mistake, and it is not reasonable). Accordingly, the Defendants decided to pay KRW 250 million to the Plaintiff by October 2, 2016 on the same day, and prepared a loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) stating that the Plaintiff would not be held liable for civil and criminal liability even if the Plaintiff disposed of the containers of Indonesia upon the failure of the commitment within the due date.

C. The Plaintiff received a total of KRW 123,00,000 from F and G, which were liable for the payment of goods, from the Defendants, the sum of KRW 250,000,00 from F and G, and the details thereof are as follows.

F G [Ground for recognition] Unsatisf, entry A1 and 2, the fact that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 126,95,900 won (=250,000,000 won - 123,004,100 won) and damages for delay.

B. The Defendants, first of all, at the time of the preparation of the instant loan certificate, had already repaid KRW 81 million to the Plaintiff out of the total amount of KRW 250 million against the Plaintiff, and had remaining only the total amount of KRW 169 million. However, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff prepared the instant loan certificate in the sense of granting the Plaintiff the right to debt collection against F and G, which is larger than that of the remainder. However, it is difficult to acknowledge this only by the evidence submitted by the Defendants.