1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 82,00,000 and Defendant B with respect thereto from September 16, 2016 to September 26, 2017.

1. According to the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that Defendant B prepared and issued a loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate as of July 16, 2015”) set forth by the Plaintiff as of July 16, 2015, with the maturity of KRW 98 million and the maturity of repayment as of August 31, 2015, and Defendant C issued a loan certificate as of June 21, 2016 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the loan certificate as of June 21, 2016”) with the maturity of KRW 89 million, which is the remainder of the loan certificate written as of July 16, 2015 as the principal and the maturity of repayment as of September 15, 2016.

In addition to the above facts and the fact that the Plaintiff did not destroy the existing loan certificate (the loan certificate dated July 16, 2015) against Defendant B and additionally received the loan certificate from Defendant C as of June 21, 2016, it is reasonable to view that Defendant C drafted the loan certificate on June 21, 2016, to mean that Defendant C would pay the obligation as of July 16, 2015 to the Plaintiff of Defendant B along with Defendant B.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff, after preparing a loan certificate on June 21, 2016, has been partially repaid KRW 7 million.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 82,00,000 won (=89,000,000 won as of June 21, 2016 - Amounting to 7,000,000 won as of June 21, 2016 - The amount being paid to the Plaintiff) and the amount equivalent to 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 16, 2016 until September 26, 2016 (the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint to Defendant B, September 26, 2017; and Defendant C, October 25, 2017).

2. As to the Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B merely introduced the Plaintiff to Defendant C, and the actual monetary transaction was between the Plaintiff and Defendant C, but the Plaintiff was aware of the Plaintiff’s introduction of Defendant B’s “B”, and thus, instead, the Plaintiff knew of the Defendant C.