1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 38,00,000 on the Plaintiff and as a result, from January 1, 2017 to June 1, 2017.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the overall purport of the pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the Plaintiff delivered KRW 50,000,000 to Defendant B, who runs the construction and the installation, maintenance, and repair business of a mutual aid season on October 23, 2015, and that the Defendants drafted and delivered to the Plaintiff a loan certificate with the effect that the Defendants would pay KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff until December 31, 2016.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 38,00,000,000 won calculated by deducting 12,000,000 won, which was paid to the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff under the agreement concluded on February 5, 2016 (i.e., 50,000 won - 12,000,000 won - 12,000,000 won on the day following the due date for payment) and as the Plaintiff seeks from January 1, 2017 to June 1, 2017, the final delivery date of the complaint against the Defendants, 5% per annum under the Civil Act until June 1, 2017, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion

A. Defendant B asserted to the effect that, among the money received from the Plaintiff, Defendant C used 31,519,000 won for expenses or personal use, and that there was a well-known knowledge of such circumstance, the Plaintiff is not liable for the aforementioned amount. However, in the instant case where the Plaintiff seeks payment of the agreed amount, the internal circumstance among the Defendants, or the fact that the Plaintiff knew of such fact, cannot affect the validity of the Plaintiff’s claim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

The above argument is without merit.

B. Defendant D’s above loan certificate was prepared on February 5, 2016 at the same time by Defendant B’s notification of dismissal to the Plaintiff at the location where the Plaintiff and the Defendant were the Plaintiff, and it was inevitably prepared at the fear that Defendant B, who had a workplace company, may unfairly forced the Plaintiff to participate in the preparation of a loan certificate and receive disadvantage within the workplace, and the Plaintiff also.