1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 63 million and 5% per annum from November 20, 2015 to February 18, 2016.

The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants to purchase “the status of a purchaser of the E-Lease in Yong-si, E-si,” which was scheduled to be acquired by the Defendants as a result of the introduction of D, with a view to purchasing KRW 63 million from the Defendants, and paid KRW 63 million to D. Defendant B, around February 1, 2010, issued one promissory note, which is “the amount of KRW 200 million, and the amount of KRW 200 million,” and Defendant C entered the said promissory note as a joint guarantor for the above promissory note as a joint guarantor for the foregoing obligation. The fact that the said promissory note was notarized as a notary public’s office No. 63 in 2010, can be recognized by the purport of the entry of the evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings.

In accordance with the above facts, the defendants issued a promissory note or jointly and severally guaranteed to the effect that the plaintiff would return at least the amount equivalent to the above purchase price if the plaintiff is unable to take over the status of the purchaser of the above rental apartment. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated at a rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from November 20, 2015 to February 18, 2016, which is the day following the day when the original copy of the payment order in this case was delivered to the defendants, as the plaintiff seeks, to dispute the defendants' obligation to perform and the existence of the above payment order.

Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff could not respond to the claim of this case because they were paid KRW 45 million at the time of D, but they failed to obtain the above rental apartment sales right because they failed to receive it properly.

However, to interpret the Promissory Notes as seen earlier, the Defendants, regardless of the amount of money received from D, should at least refund the amount equivalent to the above sales amount to the Plaintiff.