1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for payment of KRW 88,44,621 as well as the period from August 19, 2015 to June 16, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 16, 2004, Defendant B, who received advertising ancillary materials from the Plaintiff with the trade name “E”, prepared and delivered a loan certificate to the effect that Defendant C, the wife of Defendant B, pays KRW 117,00,000 per month to the Plaintiff in installments not later than February 16, 2007, and Defendant C, as the wife of the Plaintiff, guaranteed this (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

B. As Defendant B’s children, Defendant D, who began to engage in the transaction with the Plaintiff from 2008, prepared and issued a transaction statement to the Plaintiff on August 6, 2010, to the effect that the Plaintiff takes over the obligation to purchase goods equivalent to KRW 108,434,519 against Defendant B’s Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, witness G testimony, purpose of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that Defendant B and C determined KRW 117,00,000 as the principal borrowed and delivered the instant loan certificate to the Plaintiff with the intent to repay the loan principal on the ground of the credit claim settlement, etc. during the pertinent period. Defendant D is jointly and severally assumed the obligations of Defendant B and C by preparing the above transaction statement to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 108,434,519 and delay damages therefrom, barring special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defense

A. The Defendants, first of all, set up a defense that Defendant B paid part of the price of the goods above to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff, which set up a right to collateral security with respect to the real estate owned by Defendant B, received dividends of KRW 19,989,89,898 on July 20, 2007 in the auction procedure for the said real estate, as there is no dispute between the parties, so the said defense by the Defendants is with merit.

B. Following the lapse of prescription defense, the Defendants, even if the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants remains, do not exercise the right as a price claim for goods, and the extinctive prescription has expired.

(2) The loan certificate of this case