1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 343,50,000 as well as 30% per annum from January 1, 2013 to the date of full payment.

On February 16, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) determined the rate of 3% (36% per annum) per annum on the part of Defendant B, which was the trade name of “D”; and (b) lent KRW 50,000,000 to Defendant B, who carried on the sales business of the Bagwon.

(hereinafter “The First Loan”). From March 28, 201 to August 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) determined the rate of 2.8% (33.6% per annum) per annum to Defendant B from March 28, 2011; and (b) lent KRW 143,50,000 to Defendant B.

(hereinafter “Second-Loan”). The Plaintiff, on October 24, 201, lent KRW 100,000,000 on October 24, 201, and KRW 150,00,000 on February 8, 2012, as interest rate of KRW 4.545% ( annually 54.54%) to Defendant B. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 150,00,000 on February 8, 2012.

(hereinafter “third loan”). The Plaintiff received interest from Defendant B up to November 27, 2012 out of the first loan, interest from August 1, 2012 up to August 1, 2012, and interest from March 8, 2012 out of the third loan.

[Ground] According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 8, 9, 14, and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant Eul is obligated to pay to the plaintiff interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 30% per annum for the plaintiff within the scope of the agreement to pay to the plaintiff 1, 2, 3 loans totaling KRW 343,50,000 (No. 143,500 loans totaling KRW 143,500,000, KRW 3 loans totaling KRW 150,000), as the plaintiff seeks, from January 1, 2013 to the date of complete payment.

The Plaintiff’s assertion against Defendant C agreed to the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff would jointly and severally pay 2 and 3 loans,” and that Defendant C operated or actually controlled D as a partnership business with Defendant B.

Therefore, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 293,50,000 out of KRW 343,500,000 (i.e., KRW 143,500,000 for loans 143,50,000) and damages for delay.

Even if the above joint and several reimbursement agreement is not recognized, the defendant C used the name of the representative of D, and thus is responsible for the expression manager under Article 14 of the Commercial Act.

Judgment

Gap evidence 2, Gap.