1. According to the claims added by this court, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following "2. Additional Judgment" is added to the grounds for a claim, etc. which is dismissed or added by the plaintiff in this court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

(Exclusion of the part concerning Defendant B’s co-defendant B, for which the judgment of the court of first instance became separated and final, is collectively linked to “Defendant B” as “Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial,” and “Defendant C” as “Defendant” (However, “Defendant B” and “Defendant B” in “Defendant B” in “Defendant B” in “Defendant B” and “Defendant B” in “Defendant 4”). The part concerning “Defendant 16 and 17” in the second judgment of the first instance is as follows.

On May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 70 million from the G association as a broker of the Defendant, and paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant as a loan fee (section 3 of the G association’s cashier’s checks issued KRW 10 million), and each of the checks was deposited into the Co-Defendant B account in the first instance trial on the same day. The third part of the judgment of the first instance court of “this court” is regarded as the “court of the first instance trial.”

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 104,500,000 (i.e., the loan amount of KRW 74,500,000) by December 31, 2015.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 101,750,000 won after deducting 2750,000 won which has been partially repaid from the above amount as the borrowed money or the agreed amount.

B. Determination 1) The Defendant received total of KRW 104,50,000 from the Plaintiff through loan brokerage between May 19, 2015 and August 11, 2015 from the Plaintiff, as seen earlier, and the Defendant promised to pay the above money including fees from the time of receiving the above money does not conflict between the parties, or recognized the evidence Nos. 9, 12, and 13 (including household numbers and all the arguments).