A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendants lent a total of KRW 66.8 million from July 20, 2005 to April 12, 2012, 201, as stated in the detailed statement of money transaction in attached Form, including real estate acquisition costs and living costs, etc., to the Defendants, and the Defendants were paid KRW 14 million from Defendant B on April 16, 201, but were not paid the remainder of KRW 52.8 million. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount payable.

B. A person who borrows money from the Plaintiff’s summary of the Defendants’ assertion is Defendant B and only used Defendant C’s passbook during that process. Meanwhile, the amount of Defendant B’s lending money is also KRW 3 million on September 13, 2009, KRW 1 million on October 7, 2009, KRW 4 million on March 8, 2010, KRW 6 million on March 30, 2010, among the attached monetary transaction statement.

4. On April 16, 201, a total of KRW 15 million including KRW 1 million was not borrowed, and other than KRW 14 million was repaid to the Plaintiff on April 16, 201.

Therefore, the other plaintiff's assertion is unreasonable.

2. In light of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the plaintiff borrowed a sum of KRW 66.8 million to the above defendant at the request of the defendant Eul, as shown in the statement of monetary transaction in attached Form No. 2, and repaid the above KRW 14 million.

Therefore, the above Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 52.8 million and to pay damages for delay at each rate of KRW 5% per annum from July 4, 2014, which is the date following the original copy of the instant payment order, to December 24, 2014, which is reasonable to dispute over the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform. (Civil Act) and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment (Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings).

Next, it is recognized that the Plaintiff deposited money in the passbook in the name of Defendant C at the time of lending the money as seen earlier to Defendant B, but the above circumstance alone is also the Defendant C.