1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 36,600,000 and Defendant B with respect thereto from February 7, 2004, and Defendant C and D.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the serial number), the plaintiff loaned money to the defendant Eul and prepared a loan certificate of KRW 30 million on Sep. 19, 2003, and KRW 20 million on Oct. 28, 2003, and the defendant C and D wish to jointly and severally repay the debt borrowed to the plaintiff of the defendant Eul on May 19, 2004, with the intent to jointly and severally repay the debt borrowed to the plaintiff of the defendant Eul, "the rent of KRW 84,00,000 shall be KRW 41 million, and the repayment shall be made and issued to the plaintiff by September 30, 204 (hereinafter "written confirmation of this case"), and the fact that the defendant Eul and D finally prepared and delivered a confirmation document of KRW 1,230,000 on Sep. 30, 204.

According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of 36,600,000 won borrowed and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from February 7, 2004, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and from April 8, 2004, from April 8, 2004 to the day of full payment.

2. First of all, the Defendants’ assertion was asserted that Defendant B repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 10 million on November 16, 2004, and KRW 30 million on November 22, 2004, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

Next, Defendant B paid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 33.5 million on December 8, 2004, and KRW 15 million on February 17, 2005, and KRW 3.1 million on 3.1 million on 17, 2005, and claimed that the Plaintiff was exempted, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the above assertion is without merit.

Finally, at the time of the preparation of the instant confirmation document, Defendant C and D drafted the said confirmation document with the wind to threaten Defendant B, the father, who was the father, by finding the Plaintiff’s office and putting his book up, and putting them up. As such, the said Defendants’ above indication of intent for repayment is deemed to be a letter of intent.