The defendants are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff 32,250,000 won and 12% per annum from May 12, 2020 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants were the husband of Defendant B while jointly running and opening a restaurant called “D”.

Through E, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to lend funds necessary for the opening of the above restaurant business, etc.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred the sum of KRW 20 million on November 12, 2013, and KRW 50 million on November 15, 2013 to the bank account under Defendant B’s name, and transferred it to the Defendants.

B. From January 27, 2014 to June 1, 2016, the Defendants wired money to a bank account under the Plaintiff’s name on several occasions and repaid the total of KRW 17,750,000 among the principal of the loan.

【Unfounded grounds for recognition】 The facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, witness E’s testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the extended amount of KRW 32,250,000 and the amount of delayed damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 12, 2020 to the date of complete payment, following the last day of the copy of the complaint of this case.

B. The Defendants asserted that E borrowed money from the Plaintiff is not the Defendants’ lending. However, in full view of the overall purport of the statement and alteration theory as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view the Defendants’ lending of money from the Plaintiff via E in the course of jointly opening, operating, and managing D. Furthermore, as Defendant B and E divorceed, the mediation was concluded that the Defendants’ obligation owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff in relation to the opening or operation of D’s business was responsible and repaid, and this is also recognized that the Defendants’ obligation owed to the Plaintiff was the purport of verifying the existing obligation owed to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion is without merit.

The Defendants also asserted that the Plaintiff’s loan claim has expired due to the completion of the statute of limitations for commercial claims.