2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

A. The parties’ assertion that Plaintiff A joined E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) practically operated by Defendant C and was employed as a registration director, and lent KRW 90,000,000 to Defendant C with the above company’s operating funds. Plaintiff B, the husband of Plaintiff A, also lent KRW 80,00,000 to Defendant C under the same title. The Plaintiffs were issued and delivered a loan certificate for each of the above loans due to Defendant C’s failure to repay each of the above loans. Accordingly, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 90,000,000, and interest or delay damages on the above loans.

It is true that Defendant C had a business monetary transaction with the Plaintiffs, but the preparation of the loan certificate is based on the subsequent settlement of accounts, and the actual obligation of the loan amount stated in the above loan certificate does not exist.

B. According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 3 through 6 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul was established on July 24, 2012, and Eul’s wife F was its representative director, and defendant C was its inside director. The plaintiff A entered the above company around the end of 2013 and was appointed as the inside director of the above company on July 24, 2015. The plaintiff A paid money over several occasions from around 2014 to October 14, 2016 to the defendant C or E’s account, and on October 14, 2016, the defendant C borrowed money over several occasions from the plaintiff C to the defendant C or E, and on October 26, 2016 to the plaintiff, the plaintiff C borrowed money over 90,000,000 won to the defendant C or the defendant C’s husband over 2016.