1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 65,606,000 won and 25% per annum from October 25, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. On September 24, 2014, Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) received a female-use wall product, etc. from the Plaintiff, and prepared and executed the following loan certificates (Evidence A 1) in lieu of the payment of the price for the goods. Defendant B signed the above loan certificate as a joint and several surety for the Defendant Co., Ltd.’s obligation.

The amount: The sum shall be 65,606,000,000 Won (Won 65,606,000) regularly borrowed and promised to implement the following provisions:

(1) The debtor shall pay the above amount preferentially to the sales price of the product, and the due date for repayment of principal shall be October 24, 2014, irrespective of sale.

(2) The statutory maximum interest rate shall apply to overdue interests when failing to meet the payment deadline.

(3) The fact that no dispute exists, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, in lieu of the payment of the price of the goods received from the Plaintiff, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff and the principal of the loan amount of KRW 65,606,00,00 which is equivalent to the price of the goods, the due date for repayment is October 24, 2014, and the overdue interest rate is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act (hereinafter “the loan loan agreement of this case”) and the Defendant B is aware of the fact that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation of the above loan of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the interest for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, which is the overdue interest rate of the Plaintiff from October 25, 2014 to the date of repayment.

B. 1 Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company asserted to the effect that there is only a relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company’s sales of the goods through the Defendant Company, and there is no direct transaction relationship.

The evidence presented by the defendant alone is sufficient to recognize the above argument.