1. Defendant C’s KRW 90,000,000 as well as 25% per annum from May 8, 2014 to February 28, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Claim against Defendant C

(a) Indication of claim: The Plaintiff’s total amount of loans from March 27, 2012 to February 25, 2013, KRW 90,000,000, and damages for delay thereof, shall be claimed against Defendant C;

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

2. The Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant B, in collusion with Defendant C, asserted that Defendant B would be liable for the above loan obligation with Defendant C at least as the principal obligor, and that Defendant B would be liable for the said loan obligation, and that Defendant B would be liable for the said loan amount of KRW 90,000,000,000, by deceiving the Plaintiff over several occasions, such as “the cost of transferring the ownership of the land inherited to Defendant C is urgently required, and thus, Defendant C would have lent money to Defendant C.”

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8, it is insufficient to recognize that defendant Eul borrowed money from the defendant Eul to the plaintiff and attempted to conclude a loan for consumption between the plaintiff and the defendant C by delivering this purport to the plaintiff upon request of the plaintiff. The defendant C borrowed a total of KRW 90,000,000 from March 27, 2012 to February 25, 2013, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the defendant Eul was liable to the plaintiff as the principal debtor or the guarantor of the loan for consumption with the defendant C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is accepted with merit, and the claim against the defendant B is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.