1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay KRW 1,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 24, 2007, the Promotion Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Promotion Savings Bank”) provided each loan to the Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) by setting the credit limit amount of KRW 8 billion on July 24, 2007, the credit limit of KRW 10% per annum, interest rate of KRW 25% per annum, delay interest rate of KRW 460 million per annum, ② the credit limit of September 30, 2008, KRW 460 million per annum, interest rate of KRW 13% per annum, interest rate of KRW 25% per annum, ③ the credit limit of KRW 200 million per annum, March 1, 2009, and delayed interest rate of KRW 25% per annum.

B. Defendant B and C guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligations on the date of each loan agreement.

C. On May 20, 2013, the Promotion Savings Bank was declared bankrupt by Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap64, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy of the Promotion Savings Bank on the same day.

A. The remainder of the principal and interest of a loan as of October 11, 2010 is ① interest 3,053,447,910 won remaining as of October 11, 201, ② interest 177,223,79 won remaining as of October 11, 2010, ③ interest remaining as of October 11, 2010 of the loan is KRW 77,053,825 won.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the remaining interest within the scope of one billion won as requested by the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the Defendants asserted as shown in the separate sheet, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Promotion Savings Bank unfairly deducteds 3% loans from the loans on July 21, 2007, and 82,191,340 won prior to 8 billion won.

Even if the loan is illegal, it cannot be said that the loan becomes null and void or the prior interest deduction amount naturally becomes unjust.

In addition, there is no evidence to recognize that the reasons arising in relation with the Gyeonggi Savings Bank have legal effect between the plaintiff and the defendants.