2. The plaintiffs' net C Lawsuits are the plaintiffs' lawsuits.

A. A. On April 2008, the Co-Defendant E organization of the first instance trial (hereinafter “E organization”) requested financial support to the Plaintiffs due to lack of registration fees following the registration of transfer of ownership on K real estate in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu. The Plaintiff’s organization loaned KRW 10 million on April 23, 2008, and the Plaintiff’s organization lent KRW 10 million on April 29, 2008, respectively.

(b) At the time, the network C was the chairperson of the E body.

C. On July 12, 2018, the deceased deceased on July 12, 2018, and the wife, the Defendant, the Appointor, G, H, and I jointly succeeded to the rights and obligations of the deceased.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion that they were the chairperson of the E organization at the time of lending money to E organization around April 2008, because the deceased C, the chairperson of the E organization, is jointly and severally liable, the deceased C is jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiffs KRW 10 million each, and the defendant and the designated parties, who are co-inheritors of the network C, are liable to pay each of the above KRW 10 million to the plaintiffs.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the fact that the E organization borrowed KRW 10 million from Plaintiff B’s Plaintiff’s organization on April 29, 2008, and the fact that the deceased C, the president of the E organization, signed and sealed at the time of preparing a loan certificate related thereto.

However, the above signature and seal alone is difficult to see that the deceased C expressed the intent to stand a joint and several surety for the above borrowed money, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant and the designated parties are without merit.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant and the designated parties should be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reasonable grounds. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the network C in its acceptance of the defendant's appeal is revoked.