1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million and the interest thereon from September 26, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The judgment on the cause of the claim is the primary debtor, Defendant C as the surety, and the Plaintiff on August 25, 2014, and the fact that “the Defendant borrowed and guaranteed KRW 50 million on May 7, 2008, but failed to pay the interest until August 22, 2014, the interest was paid in full, and the interest was paid by 2% per month (one million won) on the said KRW 50 million from September 25, 2014 to December 31, 2015, and the above amount is repaid” (Evidence 1; hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan certificate”) was written and attached to the Plaintiff, there is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed interest rate of KRW 50 million and KRW 24% per annum from September 26, 2014 to the date of full payment.

B. The Defendants’ assertion and judgment (1) The Defendants’ assertion made the instant loan certificate by the Plaintiff’s coercion. Thus, the Defendants’ expression of intent on the instant loan certificate should be null and void or revoked.

The Defendants agreed to borrow KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff on May 7, 2008. However, the Plaintiff actually paid KRW 48 million to the Plaintiff, and thereafter paid KRW 33,037,749 to the Plaintiff, so the remaining obligations are merely KRW 14,962,251.

(2) However, there is no evidence to prove that the loan certificate of this case was prepared by the plaintiff's coercion. Thus, the defendants' assertion based on the premise that the indication of intent to bear the obligation indicated in the loan certificate of this case was invalid or cancelled is without merit, without further examination.

Even if the instant loan certificate was made by the Plaintiff’s coercion, there was an interest-free agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

There is no evidence to deem that the amount repaid by the Defendants was agreed to repay the principal as principal, and there is no evidence to deem it.