1. The Defendants each of the KRW 25,000,000 to the Plaintiff, as well as Defendant B from July 10, 2019, and Defendant C from July 12, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 1, 2015, the Defendants prepared and issued a loan certificate stating that the Plaintiff would repay KRW 50 million borrowed from the Plaintiff to December 30, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

B. The loan certificate of this case contains the name, resident registration number, and address of the Defendants as the obligor, and affix their respective seals thereto.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million to the account in the name of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on June 1, 2015, drafted with the instant loan certificate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, witness E's testimony, purpose of whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 50 million and the damages for delay pursuant to the loan certificate of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the money in accordance with the instant loan certificate. However, the instant loan certificate does not state any phrase that is sufficient to regard the Defendants’ obligations as joint and several obligations, and is written by the Defendants as each obligor. In principle, in the event there are several obligors with respect to a single set of payment, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount (Article 408 of the Civil Act). Therefore, the Defendants’ obligations based on the instant loan certificate ought to be deemed as a divided obligation.

C. Therefore, the Defendants each of the 25 million won to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 50 million x 1/2) and the Defendant B, upon the Plaintiff’s request, from July 10, 2019, following the day following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served, and the Defendant C, as of July 12, 2019, following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served, is deemed reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the Defendants’ performance obligation from July 12, 2019 until May 8, 2020, which is the day when the instant decision was rendered, with 5% per annum under the Civil Act and the next day.