1. The Defendants jointly joined KRW 233,000,000, and Defendant D with respect thereto from February 24, 2018, and Defendant C with respect to March 8, 2018.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the record of the pleadings, the Defendants issued a promissory note No. 812 of the E Notaries Joint Office No. 2014, Jul. 24, 2014 with a face value of KRW 245,00,000, the place of payment, the place of issuance, and the place of payment, Gwangju Metropolitan City with a maturity of payment, and a promissory note No. 812 with a maturity of the due date, and then deliver it to the Plaintiff (hereinafter the instant promissory note No. 200,000 among F and Defendant C) (hereinafter the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 12,00,000 from Defendant C after the criminal agreement between F and Defendant C on July 10, 2015.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination are filed by the Defendants, a joint issuer of the Promissory Notes of this case, jointly with the Plaintiff, seeking payment of KRW 245,00,000 per annum from the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of full payment.

In light of the above facts, the defendants are joint issuers of the Promissory Notes, and the payment date of the Promissory Notes is in the way of sighting. Thus, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay to the plaintiff 23,000,000 won, which remains after deducting 12,00,000 won from the amount paid to the plaintiff as of the date of the closing of argument in this case, and 233,000,000 won, which is the remainder after deducting 12,00,000 won from the amount paid to the plaintiff as of the date of the closing of argument in this case, and as to the existence and scope of the above payment order in this case, it is reasonable for the plaintiff to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation of the defendants from the day after the original copy of the payment order in this case was served to the date of the closing of argument in this case to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the plaintiff's remaining assertion in this case is accepted.