1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 95,00,000 and the interest rate thereon from November 21, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the grounds for the claim Nos. 1 and 2: (a) Defendant B continued to engage in transactions after borrowing money from the Plaintiff on several occasions; (b) prepared a loan certificate and a written statement of performance of payment (interest rate of 2% per month, and payment on December 29, 2016) with the purport that the Plaintiff would pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 115 million (payment on November 21, 2016) on December 29, 2016; (c) ② Defendant C, the husband of Defendant B, can recognize the fact that he/she jointly and severally guaranteed the above debt owed to the Plaintiff on the same day.

On the other hand, on January 3, 2017, the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 20 million out of the above loan amount of KRW 115 million from Defendant B.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the balance of KRW 95 million (i.e., KRW 115 million - KRW 20 million) and damages for delay calculated by an agreement of 24% per annum from November 21, 2016 to the date of full payment (monthly 2%).

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. The Defendants asserted that illegal consideration constitutes illegal consideration and the Defendants did not have any obligation to return the borrowed money to the Plaintiff, on the ground that Defendant B did not have any obligation to return it to the Plaintiff, as it constitutes illegal consideration, inasmuch as the Defendants were to engage in credit business against many unspecified persons, such as the Gangseoland casino customers without lawful permission or registration.

However, the result of the Defendant B’s personal examination, the head of this court’s stopping and fact-finding, and the data submitted by the Defendants alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had lent money to Defendant B with the knowledge of the fact that Defendant B had engaged in illegal credit business against many unspecified persons. In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and if there is no evidence to acknowledge the above fact.

Even if such circumstance alone, the Plaintiff’s lending to Defendant B.