1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant C shall be KRW 72 million and 15% per annum from October 22, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

Basic Facts

In around 2013, the Plaintiff and Defendant B met or came to know at a middle school parent group. The Defendants were married and reported on April 25, 201, but they were married and married on August 4, 2014.

On October 20, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 60 million to Defendant C’s request to lend KRW 1,400,000 per month interest, and transferred KRW 58,60,000 after deducting KRW 1,40,000 from Defendant B’s new agricultural bank account in the name of Defendant B.

(O) On October 2015, KRW 50 million, and KRW 8.6 million on October 21, 2015, respectively). The said money was used as the funds for opening business of “D”.

On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 12 million to Defendant C with the operating fund of the “E” operated by the said Defendant, and remitted the said money to Defendant B’s New Agricultural Cooperative Account.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 4, 6 evidence, Eul's 3 and 5 evidence, as a result of each court's order to submit financial transaction information, and as a result of this court's order, the plaintiff in the claim part against defendant C as to the whole purport of the pleading shall lend to defendant C a loan of KRW 60 million on October 20, 2015, and KRW 12 million on November 19, 2015. The above defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day after the last delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

Defendant B’s assertion of the Plaintiff as to the claim against Defendant B through service by public notice based on recognition (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) was jointly managed by Defendant C and D, and the loan of KRW 60 million transferred to Defendant B’s account in the name of Defendant B (hereinafter “instant loan”) was used as D’s deposit, premium, and interior cost. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to return the instant loan to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act.

Even if Defendant B borrowed his account and business registration name with respect to Defendant BD.