1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 150,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from November 1, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants had a monetary obligation of KRW 200,000 against Nonparty D. However, the Defendants agreed to pay KRW 50,000,000 among them to the Plaintiff on November 1, 2013 with respect to the remaining monetary obligation of KRW 150,00,000,000 among them, and to jointly and severally pay KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff as a joint and several surety (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The Defendants agreed to pay KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff on October 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. On November 1, 2013, the Defendants drafted a “notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement” with the content of the instant agreement, jointly and severally, to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 150,000,000 by October 31, 2014, and, if delay, to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum in addition to the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum.

(A) Evidence No. 1 (c)

The Defendants did not make any repayment to the Plaintiff even after the maturity date.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 150,000,000 and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from November 1, 2014 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the due date.

B. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the said “notarial deed of a monetary loan for consumption” prepared on November 1, 2013 did not satisfy the conditions of “land purchase as required by the Defendant,” and that the said notarial deed is null and void, and thus, they do not have an obligation to pay the said agreed amount to the Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence that the instant agreement is “a juristic act subject to suspension” or the said notarial deed is null and void, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit.