A. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff loaned 30,100,000 won to the defendants during the period from March 5, 2009 to June 1, 2010 (=3,000,000 won on March 5, 2009; 11,50,000 won on March 6, 2009; 200,000 won on July 6, 2009; 3,000,000 won on July 6, 2009; 200,00 won on July 3, 200, 2000 won on July 29; 3, 200,000 won on July 5, 2009; 3,000 won on July 29, 200, 2009.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that, in addition to the above-mentioned loans KRW 30,100,000, around August 2009 and around September of the same year, the Defendants took the burden of KRW 1,250,000 on behalf of the Defendants, and KRW 1,00,000 for traffic offense violations, the Defendants made unjust enrichment or borrowed the same amount from the Plaintiff.

However, each of the above evidence alone borne by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendants.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants borrowed the amount equivalent to the above money from the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for this portion is without merit.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff had received additional KRW 8,700,000 in addition to the above KRW 23,270,000,000. However, the Defendants’ assertion appears to include KRW 8,70,000, which recognized that the Plaintiff had received final reimbursement, as well as KRW 23,270,00,00 in the complaint. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 6,830,000 (=30,100,000 - KRW 23,270,000) and the up to 209.