1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 23.2 million and the Defendants B from December 9, 2010 to October 4, 2015.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence No. 1-1, No. 2, No. 2, and No. 3-1, No. 3-2, and No. 3, the plaintiff loaned the total amount of KRW 30 million to the defendant B's account four times including the amount of KRW 10 million on Nov. 3, 2009, the amount of KRW 10 million on Nov. 13, 2009, the amount of KRW 17, Nov. 17, 2009, and November 24, 11, and December 9, 200; and (b) thereafter, the plaintiff borrowed KRW 30 million from defendant B from December 9, 2009 to December 8, 2010.

“A certificate of borrowing was issued, and at that time, Defendant C affixed his signature and seal on the column of joint and several liability in the sense of joint and several liability for Defendant C’s above loan obligation to the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the fact that Defendant B paid a total of 6.8 million won by January 6, 2010 is recognized by the Plaintiff himself.

B. According to the above facts of the lawsuit, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 23.2 million won (30 million won - 6.8 million won) and to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from December 9, 2010 to October 4, 2015 for the defendant B, who is the service date of each of the complaint of this case, from the day following the due date of the above payment to December 9, 2010, and until January 20, 2016, the defendant C shall be 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, and from the following day to the day of full payment.

2. As to Defendant B’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the aforementioned loan obligation was fully repaid.

However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the defendant remitted the sum of KRW 8,200,000 to D's account from November 17, 2009 to January 15, 2010. However, the above money is not the amount of full repayment of the above borrowed amount, and there is no evidence to support that the above money was used for the repayment of the above borrowed amount. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

3. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is accepted in entirety.