1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 1, 2012 to the date of full payment.

1. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30 million to Defendant B on December 21, 201, with the due date specified on January 31, 2012, and Defendant C guaranteed the Defendant B’s obligation for the above borrowed money. The Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 10 million from the Defendants on February 1, 2012 from the Defendants on February 1, 2012, and according to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the borrowed money (hereinafter “the instant borrowed money”) and damages for delay.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the Defendants was agreed with D on the acceptance of the instant loan obligation, and thus, the Defendants cannot claim the performance of the said obligation.

B. Whether the assumption of the obligation is overlapped is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the parties indicated in the assumption of the obligation, and should be deemed to have taken over the obligation overlapping if it is not clear whether the obligation is discharged or the overlapping transferee is taken over in the assumption of the obligation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da36228 Decided September 24, 2002, etc.). According to the evidence No. 3, the fact that a notary public borrowed KRW 23,00,000 from the Plaintiff on May 20, 2013 to the end of each month from June 2013 to November 31, 201 is recognized that a notary public made a notarial deed with the purport that he/she will fully repay KRW 17,000,000,000 from the end of each month from June 2013 to December 31, 2013.

그러나 을 제 1, 2, 4, 5호증의 각 기재만으로는 원고와 피고들 사이에 피고들의 원고에 대한 이 사건 차용금 채무를 면제하여 주기로 하는 확정적 합의가 있었다고 보기 어렵고, 달리 면책적 채무인수가 이뤄줬다고 볼 만한 증거가 없는 이상 이 사건 차용금 채무에 대하여는 중첩적...