A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 1-2 of the evidence No. 1-2 of the facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is recognized as having been repaid only KRW 37.3 million out of the above loans to Defendant C several times from September 5, 2007 to October 22, 2007 upon Defendant C’s request for loans. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20190, Sep. 17, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 23508, Nov. 16, 2013>

B. We examine the judgment and, in the absence of an agreement on the time of repayment under a loan for consumption, it is clear pursuant to Article 603(2) of the Civil Act that the person who lent the loan must give a peremptory notice to return within a reasonable period of time. However, there is no provision in the highest method, and it is interpreted that the service of the complaint can be made even by delivery of the complaint (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 63Da131, May 9, 1963). In light of the facts found in the preceding paragraph, as long as it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff had set the time of repayment when considering all the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, the defendant C, barring any special circumstance, bears the obligation to pay the plaintiff the above loan 76.1 million won (13.4 million won - 37.3 million won) and the damages for delay calculated by adding the annual interest rate of 15% from March 24, 2017 to the day following the delivery of the complaint to the defendant C.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The plaintiff asserts that, around the other hand, Defendant B is jointly and severally liable with Defendant C to pay the plaintiff the amount stated in the claim, since Defendant B borrowed money with Defendant C and paid only some of them to the plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff is preliminary, and the defendant B are between the plaintiff and the plaintiff.