1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is modified as follows.

The defendant is a corporation B, E, and F.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is as follows: (a) the court: (b) stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, “Defendant C” as “B”; (c) changed “Defendant C” as “C stock company”; (d) “Defendant F” as “Defendant F”; and (e) Defendants 5 through 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “On the other hand, the mortgagee P Co., Ltd. applied for the commencement of voluntary auction on the land, including the instant land, which is the object of the joint collateral mortgage on October 31, 2017, for the establishment of an auction on the land, H 14, and 30 of the above ground building, including the instant land which is the object of the joint collateral mortgage, and (c) stated in the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the voluntary decision of commencement of auction on November 1, 2017, and the decision of permission for sale on July 2, 2019,” and cited it as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Defendants asserting that the Plaintiff’s assertion jointly and severally stated to the Plaintiff the instant agreement in the amount of KRW 20 million for the transfer price of KRW 84 million and damages for delay of KRW 80 million as damages for delay. However, the Plaintiff sought KRW 80 million as damages for delay, considering that the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 30 percent per annum from January 2016 to April 2017 (16 months) is KRW 80 million per annum (=20 million x 16 months x 30% 12).

Interest substitute payment of KRW 50 million, total of KRW 300 million, and total of KRW 330 million, and interest payment of KRW 250 million and interest payment of KRW 250 million.

B. The judgment company shall be regarded as a merchant even if it does not engage in commercial activities, while the act performed by the merchant for business purposes shall be regarded as a commercial activity, and the act of the merchant shall be presumed to be

(Article 5 and 47 of the Commercial Act). On the other hand, if the principal obligation is a commercial activity, the principal obligor and the guarantor shall be jointly and severally liable for payment.

(Article 57 (2) of the Commercial Act). According to the above basic facts, B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 330 million, and the transfer proceeds and interest thereof, according to the instant agreement.