1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from December 1, 2012 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Fact 1) Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”)

(1) On May 21, 2012, Defendant C, the actual operator of Defendant C, paid KRW 60 million to D on behalf of the Defendant Company up to November 30, 2012, and agreed to pay the said amount at an annual interest rate of 25% from the day following the payment date to the day of full payment, if the said amount was not paid until the payment date, Defendant C agreed to pay the said amount at an annual interest rate of 25%. Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation to pay the said agreed amount to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreed amount”).

(2) On April 26, 2018, D transferred to the Plaintiff the instant obligation to the Defendants. Around May 4, 2018, D notified the Defendant Company of the transfer of the obligation to Defendant C, and on May 16, 2018, the said notification reached the Defendants around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff, the assignee of the instant agreed amount, the amount of KRW 60 million, and the amount of interest calculated at the interest rate of 15% per annum, calculated from December 1, 2012 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the payment date, to the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. As to this, Defendant C did not have agreed to pay KRW 60 million to D as above, so the claim of this case is a claim with no substance. Thus, Defendant C did not have any other counter-proof evidence to reverse the facts acknowledged earlier. Thus, Defendant C’s above assertion is without merit.

B. In addition, the representative director E of the defendant company has already discontinued his business and it is merely a representative director under the name of the defendant company and the plaintiff's claim of this case is not against the defendant company.