1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed with the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,000 and 5% per annum from March 20, 2019 to December 20, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an investment agreement with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) under which the Plaintiff lent KRW 110,00,000 to the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company shall make an investment therein to pay the Plaintiff a profit rate of 8% per annum, and the Defendant Company shall pay the Plaintiff a profit rate of 8% per annum until February 28, 2017, and may extend the repayment period under the agreement where it is inevitable. The Plaintiff lent KRW 110,00,000 to the Defendant Company.

Defendant C, the representative director of the Defendant Company, was jointly and severally guaranteed.

B. On March 20, 2019, Defendant C paid only KRW 50,000 among the above loans, and on March 20, 2019, Defendant C prepared and issued to the Plaintiff a written confirmation confirming that the unpaid balance of the loans by the Defendant Company was KRW 60,000,000, and that such payment should be jointly paid.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendant Company paid KRW 60,000,000 each month upon the Plaintiff’s request, and employees D paid KRW 1,00,000 per month. Since it is not possible to ascertain the degree of payment due to D’s embezzlement, the Defendant Company will be bound until the civil trial is in progress, and as it is in a situation where the present return is impossible, the Defendant Company is requested to reduce the damages for delay.

Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge the amount of money repaid by the Defendants, and the grounds for the Defendants’ assertion alone cannot be deemed to constitute grounds for suspending the repayment period or reducing the damages for delay. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the Defendants are jointly and severally serving the Plaintiff with an original copy of the instant payment order from March 20, 2019.