1. Basic facts

A. On December 8, 2014, Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) paid KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff within the office located in the said Defendants’ domicile until February 2, 2015, and Defendant D drafted a payment note that guarantees the payment of the said agreed amount (hereinafter “instant payment note”).

B. The Plaintiff received respectively from Defendant Company KRW 10 million on January 16, 2015, KRW 20 million on February 17, 2015, and KRW 30 million on April 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4 evidence, Eul 5-1, 2, and 3's purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Defendant D, around 2012, borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff, and had the Plaintiff pay the expenses for the meal service equivalent to the KRW 0,000 on behalf of the Plaintiff in lieu of the Plaintiff’s assertion (the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim).

Afterwards, the Defendants urged the Plaintiff to pay the borrowed money on the ground that the Plaintiff does not have the right to operate the restaurant. Since the Defendants made the payment of the borrowed money and the damages incurred by the Plaintiff during that period, they are obligated to pay the unpaid amount to the Plaintiff out of the agreed amount.

B. Defendant D’s assertion (Ground of counterclaim) that Defendant D’s external village of the Defendant D gave the Plaintiff the right to operate the restaurant, and Defendant D did not make such speech or borrow money on the ground that Defendant D could not operate the restaurant within the construction site under the construction site under the Rules of the Sscco Construction Company.

Nevertheless, the F, who is the plaintiff, is the husband of the birth (the plaintiff) to the defendant D, and is waiting under the supervision of the current police.

If the demand of the birth parents is not achieved, it is not possible to resume the business.

A petition is filed against the upper line (Spanco Construction) of E and E.S.