1. Defendant B’s KRW 50,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from April 5, 2014 to October 31, 2014, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments, evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the Plaintiff is recognized to have lent KRW 50,000,000 to Defendant B on December 30, 2010. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 50% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from April 5, 2014 to October 31, 2014, the day following the day on which a copy of the complaint of this case seeking payment, was served on the Plaintiff to Defendant B.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B had a duty to pay the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages equivalent to the interest or delay damages from December 31, 2010 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint against Defendant B, but the Plaintiff did not accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion, inasmuch as there is no evidence to support the fact that the Plaintiff agreed to receive interest from Defendant B or otherwise agreed to set the due date, the Plaintiff did not accept the Plaintiff’s assertion. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was the nominal representative of the company operated by Defendant B at the time of the loan, and the Plaintiff requested the loan for the reason that the above company’s loan was necessary, and the Defendant C transferred the loan to the bank account under the name of Defendant C, and the Defendant C was jointly and severally liable to return the loan

Therefore, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is merely the fact that Defendant B requested the Plaintiff to lend the loan, and further, Defendant C engaged in the business with Defendant B, and the said loan constitutes a commercial activity for the Defendants. As such, Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act applies, and Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to return the loan with Defendant B.

(ii) As Defendant C permits Defendant C to carry on the business by using his name, Defendant C is erroneous as the owner of the business in accordance with Article 24 of the Commercial Act.