A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10 through 17 (including numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire arguments in the defendant DNA newspaper, defendant D shall lend the sum of KRW 5 million to defendant D on June 4, 2015, and KRW 30 million on September 4, 2015, KRW 35 million on September 4, 2015, and KRW 2,000,000 on February 15, 2012; KRW 1,000,000 by lending KRW 30,000 by using the credit card of the plaintiff B; KRW 1,000,000 on June 30, 2015; and KRW 2,000,000 to lend the sum of KRW 1,000 to the plaintiff C on June 28, 2015; and

According to these facts of recognition, Defendant D is obligated to pay to Plaintiff A 35 million won, Plaintiff B 27,349,200 won, Plaintiff C 50 million won, and damages for delay at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act, from February 25, 2017 to March 7, 2019, as the plaintiffs seek from February 25, 2017, the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is clear that it is the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case.

B. As to this, Defendant D asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 5 million from the Plaintiff A, and (b) the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million for the hospital expenses that the Plaintiff paid on behalf of the Defendant D; (c) the settlement was made by paying KRW 1.6 million on July 15, 2015; and (d) March 31, 2016; and (e) the remainder of the loans claimed by the Plaintiff B were fully repaid.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize Eul only with the descriptions of Nos. 1 and 2, and there is a different evidence to recognize it.