1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 12,857,140 to Plaintiff A, KRW 8,571,420 to Plaintiff B, and KRW 8,571,420 to Plaintiff C, and the aforesaid amount.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff A is the spouse of the non-party deceased F (hereinafter "the deceased"), and the plaintiff B and C are the children of the deceased.

B. On August 16, 2013, the Deceased lent KRW 30 million to Defendant D with the due date set on August 30, 2013, and Defendant E guaranteed the said obligation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the facts acknowledged as above, Defendant D and Defendant E, the primary debtor, jointly with the Plaintiffs, the deceased’s heir, are obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12,857,140 won per annum under the Civil Act from August 31, 2013 to May 30, 2019, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, with respect to each of the above amounts (=30,000,000 x 2/7) and each of the above amounts (i.e., 30,000 x 2/7) and each of the above amounts, with respect to each of the above amounts (i.e., 5% per annum under the Civil Act until May 30, 2019, which is the date the judgment is rendered.

B. The part that dismissed the Defendants’ claim for the payment of interest or delay damages from August 16, 2013 to the Defendants, or the part that imposes joint and several liability on Defendant E is dismissed as there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

3. As to the determination of Defendant E’s assertion, Defendant E decided that the deceased would not be held liable from the beginning to Defendant E.

Although there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, the deceased later asserted that he did not come into a claim or obligation against Defendant E., but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion.

Defendant E’s above assertion is rejected.

4. If so, each of the claims against the Defendants against the Defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.