1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 35,00,000 and the amount shall be 5% per annum from July 1, 2013 to May 8, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendants drafted a “joint business and investment agreement” (Evidence A) with the content of investing KRW 55 million in the initial project cost as an investor of the “Gangcheon Station Building Project” jointly implemented by the Defendants.

B. According to Article 3(3) of the said Investment Agreement, the Defendants agreed to repay the Plaintiff’s principal of investment at the time of paying the down payment for the business site, and the Defendants agreed to repay the Plaintiff’s principal of investment until June 30, 2013, even if the payment of the down payment is delayed.

C. After that, the Plaintiff was returned KRW 20 million out of the said principal of the investment.

【Ground of Recognition】 In the absence of dispute against Defendant B: entry of the evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings against Defendant C: deemed confession

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants agreed to assume an indivisible liability for the Plaintiff as joint business operators. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff at the rate of 35 million won (=5 million won - 20 million won) in the balance of the principal of investment pursuant to the agreement under Article 3(3) of the said Investment Agreement, and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum prescribed in the Civil Act from July 1, 2013 to May 8, 2015, the date following the date of return of the said agreement, which is the date of final delivery of the copy of the instant complaint, until May 8, 2015, which is the date of delivery of the copy of the instant complaint, from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, Defendant B alleged to the effect that the above evidence No. 1 was written by the Plaintiff and Defendant C’s coercion, and thus, it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. However, it is insufficient to view that Defendant B prepared the above document by the coercion of the Plaintiff, etc., on the sole basis of the statement No. 2-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 2-2. Thus, the above Defendant should bear different responsibility

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified.