1. The Defendants each of the KRW 25,000,000 to the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from January 6, 2018 to February 18, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was established on March 19, 201 as a corporation for the purpose of running the agricultural and livestock industry, and D was appointed as the representative director.

The shares of the above company are owned by D 50% and the Defendants each by 25%.

B. On January 19, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a provisional contract with Nonparty E, etc. to sell real estate listed in the separate sheet, and received KRW 100,000,000 from the provisional contract amount. Of the provisional contract amount, KRW 50,000,000, the Defendants received each of the remaining KRW 25,000 from E.

The Defendants, on the same day, drawn up and issued a certificate of borrowing KRW 25,000,000 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant certificate of borrowing”).

C. Since then, E, etc. filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff refused to conclude a fixed contract with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet ( Jeju District Court 2017Da4118) to return the aforementioned provisional contract amount on the ground that it refuses to conclude a fixed contract.

On January 5, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content demanding the Defendants to repay the borrowed money by January 22, 2018, and reached the Defendants around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap 1-5 evidence (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to return each borrowed amount of KRW 25,000,000 to the Plaintiff according to the loan certificate in this case.

The Plaintiff claimed interest in arrears from January 19, 2017, the date of lease. However, since the loan obligations based on the instant loan certificate do not exist, the Defendants are liable for delay from January 6, 2018, after receiving a claim for performance from the Plaintiff.

Meanwhile, Article 47 (1) of the Commercial Act provides that "the act of a merchant on behalf of his/her business shall be deemed a commercial activity," and Article 47 (2) of the same Act provides that "the act of a merchant on behalf of his/her business shall be presumed to be an act