1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants ordering payment in excess of the following amount shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C is the Plaintiff’s higher-ranking relationship, and Defendant B is the husband of Defendant C.

The Defendants completed business registration under Defendant C’s name and operated a bank with the trade name D.

B. On March 16, 2004, through Defendant B, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract to purchase E, F, and J land (hereinafter “G land”) for KRW 171 million.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 17 and 18 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff delivered to the defendants the total amount of KRW 25 million on March 15, 2004, KRW 120 million on March 17, 2004, KRW 180 million on March 26, 2004, KRW 150 million on April 28, 2004, KRW 150 million on April 28, 2004, and KRW 1150 million on June 11, 2004, KRW 175 million on G land purchase price and expenses, and KRW 410 million on the remainder of D operation at the request of the defendants.

The Defendants are obligated to pay the remainder of the borrowed amount of KRW 32,450,000,000 as the above borrowed amount of KRW 410,000,000,000, and the remainder of the borrowed amount of KRW 322,455,00,00

B. The Plaintiff provided Defendant B with only KRW 120 million on March 17, 2004, KRW 100 million on March 26, 2004, KRW 300 million on a total, and KRW 200 million on March 26, 2004. Among them, the Plaintiff is a cost related to the purchase of G land, and the remainder KRW 100 million is an investment related to the purchase of land, such as Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, H Forest, etc. (hereinafter “H Forest”), and there was no fact that the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Plaintiff.

(2) Defendant C only lent the name of the business owner of D, did not jointly manage D with Defendant B, and did not borrow money from the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. (1) Determination as to the cause of the claim (1) Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, and No. 1, 8, 9, 17, and 23 do not dispute the Plaintiff’s lending of money, or as to the head of the Pakistan Agricultural Cooperative in the trial.