(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. We examine the judgment as to the cause of the claim, and if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements or images of evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the Plaintiff, a legal entity for credit business, etc., concluded on November 2018 that the Defendants, who operate the clothing sales business, etc., should have an interest rate of KRW 19 million per annum, interest rate of KRW 24% per annum, overdue interest rate of KRW 24% per annum, and maturity period of payment after three months, and the Plaintiff set the period of payment after three months. As a security for the above loan, the Plaintiff set up movable property security against the Defendants. The Defendants, as a good manager’s duty of care, sold the above clothes and sold them to the Plaintiff with the money of KRW 17,605, and if the Defendants disposed of or transferred the above clothing at will, the Defendants would lose the benefit of time and immediately repay the above amount of KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendants did not keep the above loans at all at all.

According to the above facts, Defendant C, jointly and severally with Defendant B, is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from September 20, 2019 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day of final delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as claimed by the Plaintiff.

B. As to the determination of Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C asserted that all of the loans were granted to D and Defendant B, and D arbitrarily removed the above IDs, but it did not participate in the clothing shipment, and thus, Defendant C is not responsible for the repayment of the above loans.