1.For the plaintiff: (a)

Defendant A shall pay for KRW 56,79,072 and for KRW 56,641,662 from November 26, 2015 to July 15, 2016.

1. Determination as to the cause of each claim

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

B. (i) Judgment by Defendant A, C, D, or E by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) is based on the basis of recognition, the facts that the Defendant B did not dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Gap evidence 6-1 through 3, and one of the evidence No. 7

2. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion

A. Defendant B argues to the effect that, since the Industrial Bank of Korea (hereinafter “Industrial Bank”) was negligent in not making a telephone call on whether the lease contract was true during the instant loan process, Defendant B’s negligence is assessed to the extent of 30% by assessing the fault on the part of the victim and reducing the damages of Defendant B.

It is not permissible to assert that a person who intentionally committed a tort by taking advantage of the victim’s care would have reduced his/her own responsibility on the ground of the victim’s care immediately (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da17452, Sept. 5, 1997; 2012Da30892, Aug. 17, 2012). Therefore, it is not permissible to assert that the Defendant B, who conspired to commit a criminal act of the Plaintiff or Nonparty A, by taking advantage of the care of the Plaintiff or Nonparty bank, has reduced his/her own responsibility on the ground of his/her care immediately by the Plaintiff or Nonparty bank.

Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.

B. Defendant B asserts that he would have paid 5 million won to the Industrial Bank of Korea in a criminal trial, and asserts that he would be entitled to reduction of the damages of this case.

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant B repaid five million won to the Industrial Bank of Korea. Even if Defendant B repaid five million won to the Industrial Bank of Korea, the said money would have been appropriated to repay the remaining principal and interest of loans without being compensated by the Plaintiff, and the remaining amount would have been returned to the Plaintiff.