2. Defendant C and D shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff KRW 97,670,785.

The plaintiff, defendant E, and H are siblings, and defendant F is the children of defendant E.

Defendant C is a child of H, and Defendant C and Defendant D are married couple.

I is the father of defendant D.

The Plaintiff operated the “L” restaurant in the name of Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the “L” restaurant”).

On September 2009, the Plaintiff agreed to transfer Defendant C, D (hereinafter “Defendant C husband and wife”) and the above restaurant business license to KRW 230 million, and to pay KRW 135 million out of the acquisition price as a lump-sum payment, and to pay KRW 95 million as principal and interest on the marina loan in the name of K, each of which exceeds KRW 40 million and KRW 45 million.

On September 10, 2009, Defendant E lent KRW 180 million to the Plaintiff at the deposit account in the name of I (hereinafter “instant loan”) at the monthly interest rate of 1.7%, without fixing the due date. Defendant E actually paid KRW 17,69,000,000 after deducting the amount of KRW 3060,000 (i.e., KRW 180,000 x 1.7%) on a monthly basis.

On the same day, Defendant C husband and wife remitted 135 million won out of the instant loans to the Plaintiff from the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff in the new bank account in the name of the I, and used the remainder of the loans calculated by subtracting the above KRW 135 million as construction cost for the restaurant in the instant case.

Meanwhile, Defendant E brought a lawsuit claiming the return of KRW 100 million out of the instant loan to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff argued to the effect that Defendant E directly lent the instant loan to Defendant C husband and wife.

Accordingly, the Seoul Eastern District Court sentenced the Plaintiff as the borrower of the instant loan on February 19, 2013 and sentenced that “the Plaintiff shall pay to Defendant E 97,647,473 won and 20.4% interest per annum from December 13, 2011 to the date of full payment.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed, and the above court recognized the Plaintiff as the borrower of the instant loan, as well as the judgment of the first instance, "No. 2013Na20641, Nov. 8, 2013."