A. On August 25, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 650,000,00 to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) at the maturity of KRW 7.8% per annum on August 25, 2013 and delayed damages at KRW 25% per annum. At that time, Defendant B guaranteed the Plaintiff’s joint and several obligations.

B. On November 30, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 340,000,00 to Defendant A at the maturity of KRW 7.8% per annum on November 30, 2013 and KRW 25% per annum on delay damages. At the time, Defendant B guaranteed the Plaintiff’s above obligation.

C. As of January 29, 2015, the remainder of loans as of August 25, 2010 (i.e., principal amount of KRW 288,489,523 and overdue interest of KRW 271,062,340) and the remainder of loans as of November 30, 2010 (interest and overdue interest) are KRW 141,014,460 (interest and overdue interest).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 700,566,323 (i.e., 59,551,863 Won 141,014,460) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 19% per annum from January 29, 2015 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff, with respect to KRW 288,489,523 of the principal of the loans as of August 25, 2010.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants demanded that C, which arranged each of the above loans, pay approximately KRW 60,000,000 as brokerage commission, and the Plaintiff demanded that C pay the above brokerage commission. This asserts that the Plaintiff, which is a credit service provider, transferred to the Defendants that the Plaintiff ought to pay, and should be deducted from the loan amount to the extent of the above amount. On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that B’s statement in the evidence No. 2 is consistent with the above assertion, and it is insufficient to recognize it only with the statement in the evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit.