1. The Defendants jointly share the amount of KRW 58,00,000 to Plaintiff E, and KRW 100,000,000 to Plaintiff B, and each of the said amounts.

Facts of recognition

A. The Plaintiffs are married couple, and Defendant D is the one who was the representative director of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”).

B. On March 24, 2011, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants drafted a monetary lending contract (Evidence 7-1 and 2 of the Evidence 7) stating that “The Plaintiff Company A shall pay KRW 155 million to the Defendant Company, and the Plaintiff Company B shall lend KRW 100 million to the Defendant Company as of March 24, 2013, respectively, and Defendant D shall guarantee each of the above loans owed by the Defendant Company.”

C. On February 25, 2011, Plaintiff A remitted KRW 100 million to Defendant Company, and Plaintiff B remitted KRW 100 million to Defendant Company on March 24, 2011.

On August 9, 2012 and August 20, 2012, Defendant D remitted to the Plaintiff KRW 4 million each total of KRW 2 million.

[Ground for recognition] A, A’s evidence 1, 6-2, 3, and 7-1, and 7-2 [the Defendant] of the monetary lending and borrowing contract (Evidence A-2) made between the Plaintiff B and the Defendants was made by the Plaintiff A, and the Plaintiff B did not have any evidence to delegate the right to represent the conclusion of the above contract to the Plaintiff A, and thus the above contract is null and void. However, in light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiffs are married; (b) Defendant D could have easily confirmed the delegation of the right to represent as the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act; and (c) the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million to the Defendant Company on March 24, 201, which is the date of the preparation of the above contract; and (b) the above argument can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff had the authority to conclude the above contract on behalf of the Plaintiff B; and (d) the judgment as to the claim for the entire purport of the argument and the entire argument.

A. The existence and content of an expression of intent in accordance with the content of the document must be recognized, unless there is clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the document is denied, in a case where the document is deemed to have been authentic.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu16505, Mar. 23, 1990). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is the defendant.