1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 23,00,000 and the interest rate thereon from November 14, 2015 to the date of full payment.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff loaned KRW 23,00,000 per month to defendant B on December 13, 2005, and the due date of payment on March 30, 2006 (hereinafter "the loan of this case"), and the joint and several surety of the defendant C on December 13, 2005 with respect to the obligation to return the loan of this case against the plaintiff of defendant B on December 13, 2005 is recognized, and the plaintiff was paid interest accrued until November 13, 2015 with respect to the loan of this case from the defendants. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the interest rate of KRW 23,00,000 per annum and interest rate of KRW 20 per annum from November 14, 2015, which is the day following the last payment date of interest.

The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants’ assertion. The Defendants paid KRW 500,000 per month to the Plaintiff the interest on the instant loan after the instant loan. On November 9, 2006, the Defendants drafted a separate loan certificate (Evidence 1) with a partial repayment of the instant loan amounting to KRW 20,000,000 (Evidence 1) with the loan principal paid to the Plaintiff. However, it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to file the instant claim on the grounds of the original loan certificate (Evidence 1) written by the Plaintiff with respect to the instant loan.

Judgment

It is insufficient to recognize that Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 was made with respect to the remaining principal of the loan of this case only with the descriptions of Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 in light of the contents, form, etc. of Eul evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

After the conclusion of the pleadings in this case, the Defendants, on May 21, 2018, paid to the Plaintiff interest of KRW 500,000 per month on the instant loan, and the legal relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants with respect to the instant loan was settled in entirety, and thereafter, the interest paid by the Defendants was irrelevant to the instant loan.