1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 150,000,000 won and the period from November 6, 2016 to July 23, 2019.

On July 6, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 150,00,00 to Defendant B at interest rate of 10% per annum, and on July 5, 2017, the due date for repayment was determined as 10%, and the fact that Defendant C guaranteed Defendant B’s above loan obligations is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 150,000,000, and interest thereon from November 6, 2016 to July 23, 2019, the date of delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the purport of the instant claim, which is the agreed interest rate of 10% from July 23, 2019, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date of complete payment from the next day to the date of full payment.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that they paid KRW 10 million to the beneficiary of principal on November 1, 2016, and therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to pay the principal amounting to KRW 10 million. Thus, the above KRW 10 million shall be appropriated in order of the cost, interest, and principal pursuant to Article 479 of the Civil Act. In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the above KRW 10 million can be acknowledged in full, in consideration of the statement in subparagraph 3 of Article 479 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants cannot be accepted.

The Defendants also asserted to the effect that even if the Plaintiff did not work for about six months from September 2016 to February 2017 during the period in which the Plaintiff had worked, the amount of KRW 18,00,000 paid as wages should be deducted. However, even if the Defendants’ assertion is acknowledged, it shall be deemed a claim for return of unjust enrichment, etc. against the Plaintiff of the non-party company, which was transferred by the Defendants to the non-party company.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants could exercise the above claim against the non-party company. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's objection against the defendants.