1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff and Defendant B with respect thereto from January 9, 2018, and Defendant C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 1, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) determined KRW 100 million to Defendant B on March 31, 2018, with regard to the acquisition of the E Hospital located in the North-gu, Northern-si; (b) and (c) lent the amount of KRW 100 million to Defendant B.

At the time, the Plaintiff borrowed the above KRW 100 million from the F Bank and lent it to Defendant B, and “Defendant B loses the benefit of time when the payment of interest on the F Bank is delayed.”

B. Meanwhile, on October 13, 2017, Defendant C borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff on September 1, 2017.

‘Preparation and delivery of a loan certificate' has been made.

C. The Defendants paid only the interest on the F Bank up to October 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 6 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that Defendant C concurrently assumed the obligation of Defendant C. As such, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 9, 2018 to the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint in this case, upon the Plaintiff’s claim, on the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, as the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff.

3. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion

A. The summary of the assertion was transferred to G, the spouse of the Defendant C, to KRW 61 million, among KRW 100,000,000, which Defendant B received from the Plaintiff, and the remainder of KRW 39,000,000 was used as the operating fund of the E Hospital operated by Defendant C.

Since Defendant C prepared and delivered a loan certificate to the Plaintiff that he would pay the above KRW 100 million, he cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

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