1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 42,690,102 as well as KRW 39,00,000 among them, from November 6, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff lent money to Defendant A with the joint and several sureties of Defendant B with the following content:

Repayment of loans in installments, such as the agreed interest rate maturity rate, overdue interest rate, 39,000,000 13.9% per annum on May 10, 2017 23.9% per annum;

B. Defendant A did not pay installments under the above loan agreement after June 10, 2014 and lost the benefit of time.

C. The Defendants’ obligation content calculated pursuant to the above loan agreement as of November 5, 2014 is as listed below.

39,000,000 2,655,224 38,170 646,708 42,690,102 / [Grounds for Recognition] A, each of the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 42,690,102, including the principal and interest of loan, and KRW 39,00,000,00 of the principal and interest of loan, which are the overdue interest rate of KRW 23.9% per annum from November 6, 2014 to the date of full payment.

As to this, Defendant A entered into the above loan agreement to purchase dump trucks, but did not receive fraud from C, and therefore, Defendant A asserts that the above loan should be responsible for C.

Even if Defendant A entered into a loan agreement with the above content by deception from Defendant A, such circumstance alone does not make the above loan agreement null and void or limit Defendant A’s liability. Thus, Defendant A’s above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.