1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 950,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from September 27, 2010 to the date of full payment.

1. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 2 (including partial number of evidence Nos. 1) as to the cause of the claim, the defendant corporation Gap corporation (hereinafter "the defendant corporation") entered into a credit transaction agreement with the bankrupt Korea Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter "SB") on March 5, 2010 which determined the maximum amount of 4 billion won, damages rate of 25% per annum, and three months after the due date, and the defendant Eul jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant corporation. Accordingly, the loan of 3.8 billion won per day to the account in the name of the defendant corporation established in the non-party bank was carried out, and was withdrawn by the comprehensive electric list, etc. with which the seal of the defendant corporation was affixed, and the non-party bank can recognize the fact that the plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee of the non-party bank after being declared bankrupt by the Busan District Court on March 5, 2012.

According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum of the agreed delay damages from September 27, 2010 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day on which the final interest resources were paid, as the Plaintiff seeks part of the above principal and interest of loan, to the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. On the determination of the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that, in collusion with the non-party bank, they only lent the name of the loan to the non-party bank by signing and sealing the documents related to the loan under the agreement that the Defendants shall not be liable as the debtor, and that the non-party bank actually managed and operated the account in the name of the Defendant company. The Defendants do not actually receive the above loan or have received the demand for repayment, and thus, the above credit transaction agreement is invalid due to lack of the intention to have the loan actually and its acceptance.

However, at the time of the above argument or the bank of the non-party.