1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 41,60,000 won and 24% per annum from November 11, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of premise;

A. The Plaintiff’s wife transferred not less than KRW 87,00,000 in total to Defendant B or Defendant C’s account, which is the husband’s death, from January 20, 2015 to May 29, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff is holding three borrowed certificates that “the Defendant borrowed cash to 24% interest per annum from the Plaintiff’s husband,” including KRW 7,400,00,000, KRW 18,400,000, and KRW 15,800,000. The Defendants’ seals are affixed to each of the Defendants’ respective borrowed certificates.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Gap 4-2, 3, and 4-4 (each loan certificate, defendant Eul affixed the seal of defendant Eul to the loan certificate without authority; however, as long as the identity of the seal is recognized, the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been established and the authenticity of the whole loan certificate is presumed to have been established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act; there is no counter-proof to reverse the presumption; the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants do not have a dispute that the purport of the loan certificate is to be jointly and severally repaid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant husband and wife. According to the premise facts, as long as financial transaction details exist between the Plaintiff’s wife and the Defendants exist, and as long as the loan certificate was written in the Defendants’ name, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 41,60,000 stated in the loan certificate and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from November 11, 2017 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant B’s assertion cannot be accepted inasmuch as Defendant B merely allowed Defendant C to use the Defendant B’s account and did not have any obligation, but did not necessarily have to prepare the Plaintiff’s forced loan, and thus, it cannot be complied with the Plaintiff’s claim. However, there is no evidence to deem that the loan certificate was drafted as the Plaintiff’s forced execution.

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified.