1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 138,898,629 and the interest rate of KRW 39% per annum from September 27, 2013 to the day of full payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the entries and the purport of the evidence No. 1 as well as the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s lending of KRW 200 million to the Defendant and B on July 30, 2012 at the rate of 36% per annum, the overdue interest rate of 48% per annum, and the due date of repayment on October 29, 2012. The Plaintiff prepared a loan transaction agreement with the Plaintiff and B’s name, resident registration number, cell phone number, and each seal affixed on the right side of signature (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) in the debtor column.

2. Determination on loan claims

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is jointly and severally liable for the return of the above loan with B, and the defendant asserts that the above debt is divided.

B. In a case where multiple parties become a debtor together with other parties under the Civil Act, in principle, the multiple debtors bear the installment obligations, unless there is any special declaration of intention. However, in a case where a claim relationship occurs by the parties’ declaration of intention, it may be interpreted that multiple debtors bear an indivisible obligation in light of the nature of performance, transaction practices, the intentions of the parties, and the relationship between the parties and the transaction circumstances. Thus, in a case where multiple parties become a debtor under a contract, the court should distinguish whether the majority parties jointly consider the above circumstances in the interpretation of a specific case that is to become a debtor under the contract, and whether the multiple debtors bear the installment obligations or are liable for the full amount of obligations overlappingly.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26521 Decided August 20, 2014). C.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant and Eul are the obligation to return the above loan to the plaintiff.