1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 95,00,000 and Defendant B from September 24, 2019, and Defendant C.

1. On August 21, 2016, Defendant B, who made a decision on the cause of the claim, received KRW 95 million from the Plaintiff in return that the Plaintiff would allow the Plaintiff to operate the field restaurant in the E apartment reconstruction site. Within one month, Defendant B agreed to return money paid by the Plaintiff in the event that the Plaintiff is unable to cause the Plaintiff to operate the field restaurant in the said reconstruction site. Defendant B promised on March 7, 2017 to allow the Plaintiff to operate the field restaurant in the F apartment reconstruction construction site, and agreed to return KRW 95 million to the Plaintiff if it fails to comply with the agreement after the establishment of the site (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the above debt of Defendant B; Defendant B did not grant the Plaintiff the right to operate the field restaurant in the promise of the Plaintiff; Defendant B’s assertion that the Plaintiff and Defendant B made a confession pursuant to Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and the entire purport of Defendant B’s evidence of pleading as to the confession of each Plaintiff C1 and Defendant B.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 95 million and to the defendant Eul from September 24, 2019, the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, and the defendant C is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 3, 2020 to the day of full payment each of them are served.

2. Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion

A. Defendant C’s assertion that Defendant C agreed to pay KRW 95 million in the event that Defendant C did not grant the Plaintiff the right to operate the field restaurant even after Defendant C opened the F reconstruction construction site. However, Defendant C did not have an obligation to pay the said agreed amount on the ground that the reconstruction construction site was not opened because the reconstruction construction site did not proceed. Therefore, Defendant C’s assertion to the effect that the said agreed amount was not payable due to the absence of the due date or

(b).