1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and Defendant B Co., Ltd. from November 14, 2019.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff and Eul concluded a business partnership agreement with the defendant Eul Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant Co., Ltd.") on February 4, 2016 to take a unique image from the defendant Co., Ltd., and set the deposit amount of KRW 100,00,000, and the period from February 4, 2016 to February 3, 2018. The defendant Co, Ltd, as the representative director of the defendant Co., Ltd, agreed to bear the responsibility under the above business partnership agreement with the defendant Co., Ltd. as to the plaintiff and D on February 23, 2016. Since D withdraws from its business partnership with the plaintiff, the plaintiff was changed to the period of February 3, 2017 when entering into the same business partnership agreement with the defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant Co., Ltd."), the plaintiff paid the above business partnership agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant Co., Ltd.

As such, it is reasonable to view the agreement of Defendant C as jointly and severally liable for the obligation of the Defendant Company. Barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 1,00,000 won of the above deposit and the damages for delay at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 14, 2019 to the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case as the Plaintiff seeks. Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 12% per annum under the aforesaid Act, as the Plaintiff seeks.

Defendant C asserted that Defendant C would first demand performance to Defendant C, the primary debtor, but the fact that Defendant C was jointly and severally liable with the Defendant Company is as seen earlier. Therefore, Defendant C’s above assertion is without merit.

Even if Defendant C simply guaranteed the obligation of the Defendant Company, it is reasonable to conclude that the aforementioned highest search defense has the ability to repay to the principal obligor and that its enforcement is easy.