1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 23,00,000 and Defendant B from February 21, 2008 to May 14, 2014.

1. Claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff, on November 20, 2007, lent 1.5% interest rate of KRW 23 million to Defendant B on November 20, 2007, and on November 20, 2008. Defendant B paid only interest until February 20, 2008, and did not pay interest and principal thereafter. Thus, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 18% per annum with the agreement rate of KRW 23 million from February 21, 2008 to the delivery date of the complaint, and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

(b) Judgment on deemed confession based on recognition (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 2.

(1) On November 20, 2007, the Plaintiff lent the amount of KRW 23 million to Defendant B as interest rate of KRW 1.5% per month and due date of payment on November 20, 2008. Defendant C, who is the wife of Defendant B, guaranteed the above loan obligation against the Plaintiff by Defendant B.

(2) The Defendants paid only interest to the Plaintiff until February 20, 2008, and did not pay thereafter interest and principal.

(3) On August 16, 2013, Defendant C applied for immunity and adjudication of bankruptcy at the Daegu District Court 2013 3801 and 2013Hadan3801, and was granted immunity on May 8, 2014. The decision became final and conclusive on May 23, 2014.

However, the list of creditors submitted by Defendant C while applying for the above immunity did not include the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. The argument and the judgment of Defendant C claimed that the Plaintiff was exempted from liability because they were granted immunity.

The plaintiff asserts that the above defendant C did not exempt the above defendant's liability for the above claim because he knew of the existence of the above claim in bad faith at the time of application for exemption.

The debtor's rehabilitation.