The lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 shall be terminated on December 5, 1973 as the withdrawal of appeal.

The costs of appeal by the defendant 1 shall be borne by the same defendant, and the costs of appeal after the request for designation of the date of April 15, 1974 by the defendant 2 shall be borne by the same defendant.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials.

On November 14, 1973, the date for the first pleading of the trial, Defendant 2 and the Plaintiff were not present at the meeting. On May 10, 1900 of the same year, which is the date for the second pleading, it is evident that the Defendant did not appear but did not present at the meeting, and it is evident that the Plaintiff did not present but present at the meeting.

Defendant 2, as a soldier on September 17, 1973, before the date of pleading of the first instance trial, the defendant was transferred to the 715 unit of the Army, which was before the date of pleading of the first instance trial, and had resided in the said unit without living in the previous address of Busan-dong, Busan-dong, and each of the date of pleading of the first and second instances was delivered to the above address, and the defendant was not aware of the fact that the summons was delivered to the above defendant on the 19th day of pleading because the above facts were not known to the defendant, and it was not delivered to the above 19th day of pleading since the above facts were not known that the above order was delivered to the defendant on the 19th day of pleading of the first instance court. The defendant was sent to the above 19th day of pleading on September 17, 1973 to the above 1st day of pleading, and there was no dispute between the parties who had been transferred to the above 2nd day of pleading and the above 16th day of pleading.

Thus, the defendant 2's request for the designation of the fixed date is without merit, and the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be deemed to have been terminated on December 5, 1973 as the withdrawal of appeal.

We examine the following claims against Defendant 1:

In full view of the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, non-party 4's testimony and the whole purport of the party's argument as a result of the party's pleading in the testimony of non-party 3, the plaintiff may recognize the facts that the plaintiff lent 10,000 won to defendant 1 on June 1971, 200 won on September 8 of the same year, and 1,00,000 won on September 25 of the same year to the plaintiff on September 25 of the same year, and 1,00,000 won on September 25 of the same year to the date on which the plaintiff claims after one month from the date of each lease, and the testimony of non-party 1 and 2 as well as the testimony of Non-party 5 on the party's own testimony or the party's testimony as contrary thereto are not believed, and there is no other evidence to support the above recognition.

Thus, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest and delay damages within the scope of the interest limit law with 36% per annum from September 8, 1971 to August 2, 1972 as to the remaining 10,000 won, and from September 25, 1972 to the full payment rate of 25% per annum from August 3, 1972 to the full payment rate of 310,000 won.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 is reasonable, and the judgment of the same court is just, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, so it is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 is terminated on December 5, 1973 as the withdrawal of appeal, the decision is made in accordance with Article 95 and Article 89 of the same Act as to the burden of litigation costs. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 95 and Article 89 of the same Act.

Judges Seole Hong (Presiding Judge) Lee (Presiding Judge)