1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,251,670 and 29% per annum from February 4, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 2014, Defendant B purchased 1 of the face value-type flag from Defendant C, and raised purchase funds using the loan for installment financing (the loan principal of KRW 25 million, the interest rate of KRW 16% per annum, the interest rate of KRW 29% per annum, the monthly installments of KRW 1,224,078, the agreed amount of KRW 29,37,865, the date of the first installment payment, January 25, 2015, and December 25, 2016).

B. On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the above installment financing loans owed by Defendant B’s Samsung Card, and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the liability for reimbursement against the Plaintiff following the Plaintiff’s performance of the guaranteed obligation.

At that time, the Defendants agreed to pay damages for delay calculated at an annual interest rate of 29% (interest rate on delay in installment financing loans) from the following day when the Plaintiff pays the principal and interest of the loan due to the performance of the guaranteed obligation to Samsung Card.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 35,251,670 to Samsung Card on February 3, 2016, upon the claim of Samsung Card following Defendant B, etc.’s default of the installment payment, and fulfilled the guaranteed obligation.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1-8 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 35,251,670 for indemnity and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 29% per annum from February 4, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the performance of the guaranteed obligation.

B. Defendant B asserts to the effect that, in collusion with the land owner D, Defendant C, and the Plaintiff, etc., they are unfairly liable to Defendant B for an illegal loan by making up for the machine price.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff conspired with D, etc. to receive unfair loans, and even if other persons except the Plaintiff conspired to obtain unfair loans, the Defendant cannot be exempted from the obligation of compensation in relation to the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant B’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. As above, the conclusion is the same.