1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 55,00,000 and 3% per month from July 1, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the serial number) and the purport of the entire pleadings as to witness Eul's testimony, the plaintiff completed the registration of credit business under the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users on June 8, 2012, and the defendant Eul agreed to pay the plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 55,00,000, interest and overdue interest rate of KRW 3% until October 13, 2013, and the above amount of the loan amount of KRW 55,00,000, interest and overdue interest rate of KRW 3% until June 30, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "instant agreement"), and the defendant Eul can be found to have jointly and severally guaranteed the plaintiff's debt of the above loan amount of KRW 55,00,000 and damages for delay calculated by the agreement on July 1 through 30, 2014.

2. Defendant B did not borrow the above money from the Plaintiff, but borrowed it from D. While the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendants who are public officials, the Defendants agreed in this case without the intent to bear a debt, which constitutes a declaration of bad faith, and thus, it is null and void, or the Defendant B borrowed money from the Plaintiff and entered into the agreement in this case by the Plaintiff’s coercion, and thus, it is alleged that the agreement was cancelled. As seen earlier, the fact that Defendant B borrowed money from the Plaintiff and reached the agreement in this case is the fact that the Defendants who are public officials of the Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties, but there is no evidence to support that the agreement in this case constitutes a declaration of bad faith of the Defendants, and that the Defendants’ agreement in this case was reached by the Plaintiff’s coercion. Thus, all of the Defendants’ assertion are without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.