Defendant B’s annual interest in KRW 289,756,373 and KRW 106,470,292 from July 11, 2019 to October 6, 2019.

1. Claim against the defendant B

A. The description of the claim is as indicated in the part as to Defendant B among “the cause of claim” and “the cause of modified claim” attached to the description of the claim.

(b) Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

C. The Plaintiff seeking payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the day on which the written complaint is served to the day of complete payment. However, the above rate is applied from the day after the written complaint or other equivalent document seeking the performance of monetary obligations was served to Defendant B. Thus, the above 183,286,081 won is recognized as being legal interest at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until May 14, 2020 when the written application for change of the cause of the claim was served to Defendant B, and the excessive portion is dismissed.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The summary of the cause of the claim was jointly and severally guaranteed each of the loan obligations of KRW 105,192,00 and KRW 183,00,000 loaned from Defendant C as the principal debtor with Defendant B and KRW 183,00,000 loaned from Company E.

However, on July 11, 2019, the Plaintiff paid the principal amount of KRW 106,470,292 on the said D (i.e., interest of KRW 105,192,000), and KRW 183,286,081 on July 25, 2019 (i.e., principal amount of KRW 183,286,00,000) on behalf of the Defendants due to the Defendants’ failure to repay their respective loans (i.e., principal amount of KRW 183,00,000).

Therefore, Defendant C, as the principal obligor, is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B to pay each of the above amounts subrogated by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff and the legal interest or delay damages after the date of exemption from liability.

B. As alleged by the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant C had received each of the above loans from each of the above banks as the principal debtor. Thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted even without examining any further.

The plaintiff, defendant C.