Therefore, according to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of the evidence Nos. 2 and 2-3, the plaintiff deposited the defendant's account in the defendant's name of July 23, 2008, and KRW 32 million on August 31, 2010, but the plaintiff himself deposited the above money in the defendant's name of the defendant's account upon the defendant's request. In light of the fact that the above money was borrowed by himself, it is insufficient to view that the plaintiff lent the above money to the defendant's account in the defendant's name of the defendant's account alone.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 90 million to Defendant B as indicated in the following table is not disputed between the parties, or is recognized by the evidence No. 2-1. Thus, Defendant B, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 865 million after deducting KRW 125 million from the Plaintiff who was partially repaid from the loan.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion about the cause of claim is justified within the above scope of recognition.

Serial 10,00,00 on July 26, 201; 200 on October 26, 2011; 30,000 on October 26, 201; 250,000 on April 40, 200,00 on January 16, 201; 50,000 on January 10, 2012; 50,00 on May 14, 2013; 10,000,00 on February 10, 200; 10,000,00 on February 3, 200, 10, 100,000, 50,000 on March 11, 20, 2007; 10,000,000 on August 10, 2013; 10, 2000;

B. Defendant B’s assertion (i.e., the above claim) borrowed the sum of KRW 1.64 billion on 31 occasions from the Plaintiff, including the loan borrowed as stated in the above claim cause.

Defendant B shall have a total of 646 million won over 12 times.