1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 as well as 24% per annum from April 27, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) is a corporation whose main purpose is to provide real estate consulting services, and Defendant B is its representative director.

Defendant C is the internal director of Defendant C as the denial of Defendant B.

Loan interest amounting to KRW 100,000: from April 26, 2018 to August 25, 2018: D B EF amounting to KRW 3,000,000 per month.

B. On April 20, 2018, D and Defendant B drafted a cash borrowed contract with the following contents to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”), and transferred KRW 100,000,000 from the Plaintiff to the Defendant C’s account on April 23, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, Eul's 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the above recognition of the claim against Defendant B, a loan contract for consumption of KRW 100 million was concluded between the Plaintiff and Defendant B through the formation of the instant contract, and around that time, the Plaintiff paid the above KRW 100 million to Defendant B. Accordingly, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 24% per annum under the Interest Limitation Act, as sought by the Plaintiff, within the agreed interest rate within the scope of the agreed interest rate from April 27, 2018 to the date of full payment.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that, at the time of the formation of the instant contract with Defendant C, the Plaintiff had telephone conversations with Defendant C, and during that process, Defendant C said to guarantee the Plaintiff’s obligation, Defendant C also has the obligation to pay the said amount jointly and severally with Defendant B.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff and Defendant C had telephone conversations at the time of the formation of the instant contract, and the Plaintiff deposited the said money to Defendant C’s account alone is difficult to deem that Defendant C had the intent to guarantee. The evidence and the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff alone are alone.