1. Defendant B and C jointly share KRW 300 million with the Plaintiff and 15% per annum with respect thereto from January 1, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around November 2008, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 300 million to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) as of March 5, 2009.

B. On April 3, 2009, D, Defendant A (D representative director), B (D real operator), and C issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) as “amounting to KRW 300 million, date of payment: At sight” and a notarized deed (No. 99) on this issue.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants are obligated to pay KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff as a joint issuer of the Promissory Notes. 2) At selective option, the Defendants borrowed KRW 300 million from the Plaintiff under the pretext that they would use it as D’s operating funds even though they did not intend or have ability to repay, and acquired it by embezzlement from D. As such, the Defendants are obligated to compensate for damages equivalent to the above borrowed money suffered by the Plaintiff due to the above tort.

B. Defendant A1) was merely a representative director in the form of Defendant D, and Defendant A’s request by Defendant B, the actual operator, stored the personal book in D, but did not either prepare the bill of this case or take part in tort of borrowing KRW 300 million from the Plaintiff. 2) Since the extinctive prescription of the bill of this case has expired, the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of the bill of this case is also unjust.

3. Determination

A. As seen earlier, Defendant A is recognized as a joint issuer of the Promissory Notes as to the claim against Defendant A. As seen earlier, Defendant A is liable to pay KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

Defendant A was not the representative director in the form of D.

The mere fact that Defendant B had been allowed to use the bill of this case by keeping his personal map or personal map in D is obstructive to recognize that Defendant A issued the bill of this case.