1. The Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff A, KRW 50,00,000, and KRW 70,000,000, and each of the above amounts.

According to the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2, 5, and 6 of the evidence Nos. 1-1-2 and the entire pleadings, the Defendants may recognize the fact that they jointly run a business and jointly borrowed KRW 50,000,000 from the business funds to the Plaintiff on May 22, 2012, and KRW 70,000,000 from the Plaintiff B on July 20, 2012.

Therefore, the Defendants, as joint borrowers, are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff A KRW 50,00,000,000, and KRW 70,000,000 to the Plaintiff B, and damages for delay on each of the above amounts pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act.

Meanwhile, the written evidence Nos. 5 and 6 alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that each of the above loans was due and payable between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In the case of a loan with no fixed term of time, the borrower shall be liable for delay from the time when a reasonable period of time has elapsed after the lender notified the return (see Article 603(2) of the Civil Act), and according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Articles 603(5) and 6, the Plaintiffs may recognize the fact that the Defendants had already notified the Defendants of the return of each of the above loans before filing a complaint against the Defendants for fraud. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim for delay damages from the date following the date on which the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiffs was served after the reasonable period of time has expired

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Plaintiff A the amount of KRW 50,000,000, KRW 70,000,000, and each of the above amounts to Plaintiff B at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 22, 2019 to the date of full payment after the last delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim of this case is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.