1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 30 million and the amount of KRW 12% per annum from November 11, 2015 to April 12, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 12, 2014, and April 11, 2014, the Plaintiff leased to Defendant B an annual interest rate of KRW 600 million, 12% per annum, and the due date of repayment on February 11, 2015. Defendant C, the husband of Defendant B, jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation.

B. Since July 2, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 300 million from Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff returned KRW 20 million out of KRW 300 million received from Defendant B on July 2, 2015 upon Defendant B’s request. As such, the remaining principal out of KRW 600 million is KRW 320 million.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 320 million and damages for delay.

B. Of the instant loans by Defendant B, the principal repaid by Defendant B is KRW 300 million, and Defendant C was liable for the remaining principal amount of KRW 300 million.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is unfair since he did not impose any further responsibility on the defendant B while consenting thereto.

C. Defendant C and Defendant B agreed that the instant loan claim KRW 600 million should be converted into the lease deposit return claim, when they concluded a lease agreement with respect to the land and above-ground buildings (hereinafter “astronomical real estate”) in Seocho-gu, Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seocheon-si, the ownership of Defendant B.

The loan obligation of Defendant B, the principal debtor, was extinguished due to the foregoing novation agreement, and the joint and several debt obligation of Defendant C also extinguished according to the principle of infiniteness.

3. Determination

A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff received KRW 300 million as a partial repayment of the instant loan from Defendant B on July 2, 2015, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff returned KRW 20 million to Defendant B again.

Therefore, the remaining amount of the instant loan should be deemed KRW 300 million.

The plaintiff's assertion that exceeds this.