1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 100,000,000 and KRW 50,000 among them, from May 8, 2015.

1. The “creditor” and the “debtor” as indicated in the attached Form of the judgment on the cause of the claim are deemed the Plaintiff and the “debtor” as the Defendant.

The aforementioned facts do not conflict between the parties. As to the Plaintiff’s total sum of KRW 100,00,000 and the principal of KRW 50,000,00,000, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from May 8, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the following day of the borrowing, to the date of full payment, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the agreement, from April 26, 2016 to the date of full payment.

2. The Defendants’ assertion acknowledged that they borrowed the same money as stated in the cause of the claim from the Plaintiff. However, on July 26, 2016, concluded an agreement with the Plaintiff to substitute the said borrowed money with the goods corresponding to the said borrowed money, and thus, they cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim in this case.

The Supreme Court Decision 7Da369 delivered on June 7, 197) held that payment was made in kind only when the payment was made effective (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da369 delivered on June 7, 197). The fact that the agreement was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendants as alleged above does not conflict between the parties, but there is no evidence to prove that the defendants provided the plaintiff with the goods equivalent to the loan of this case in accordance with the above agreement. Thus, the defendants' defense is without merit.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.