1. Defendant B’s KRW 34,900,000 and the following day shall be 5% per annum from June 1, 2017 to October 25, 2018.

1. As to Defendant B

(a) The description of Defendant B of the grounds for the attachment of the claim is as set out in the attached Form.

(b) Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. As to Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 34,900,000 to Defendant C.

Even if the Plaintiff’s lending of the Defendant C is not recognized, the Defendant C conspired with the Defendant B and acquired KRW 34,900,000 from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay the money stated in the purport of the claim to Defendant B and each other.

B. The loan for consumption is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return such kind, quality and quantity as such (Article 598 of the Civil Act). Thus, it is natural that the other party agrees to the above point.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 2010). In addition, in a case where money is transferred to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the party’s intent as to loan for consumption has been jointly determined solely on the fact that such transfer was made.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012). The burden of proving the existence of the parties’ intent lies in the assertion that the remittance was caused by a loan for consumption.

According to the evidence No. 1 of this case, although the plaintiff was found to have deposited part of the money into the defendant C's account, there is no objective evidence such as a loan certificate that the plaintiff lent 34,900,000 won to the defendant between the plaintiff and the defendant C, and that the defendant C would have agreed to repay it. Thus, the plaintiff's objection is in accordance with the above legal principles.