1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 46,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 20, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute over the claim against Defendant B, and the overall purport of the statement and pleadings by the Defendants, in relation to the Plaintiff’s residence on August 31, 2015 and the case of theft of the certificate of borrowing KRW 46,000,000 as to the Defendant B’s residence, the following facts can be acknowledged: “Defendant B acknowledges that the obligation to borrow the Plaintiff should be borne by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff shall not be punished by the Defendants.”

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 46,00,000 won with 15% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 20, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day when the original copy of the payment order for which the Plaintiff seeks payment to the said Defendant reaches the above Defendant.

(1) The plaintiff filed a claim for damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from September 1, 2005 to the delivery date of the authentic copy of the payment order. However, on August 31, 2005, the plaintiff and the defendant Eul did not separately set the payment date of the above agreement while preparing the agreement. Thus, the plaintiff and the defendant Eul are liable for delay from the day following the delivery date of the authentic copy of the above payment order for which the plaintiff filed a claim for performance. Thus, this part of the claim is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C also sought payment of the agreed amount under the above agreement, but the person who agreed to pay the borrowed amount under the agreement is limited to Defendant B, and there is no evidence to prove that Defendant C agreed to pay the borrowed amount. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is without merit.

2. Judgment on the defense

A. Defendant B had never borrowed KRW 46,00,000 to the Plaintiff. On August 30, 2005, Defendant B’s defense of unfair conduct had no record of borrowing KRW 46,000 from the Plaintiff. However, around August 30, 2005, Defendant B’s emergency arrest on the case of theft of the Plaintiff’s loan certificates, etc., and was detained, was detained at the time of detention.