1. The defendant (Appointeds) and the appointed parties are jointly and severally against the plaintiff KRW 68,027,793 and KRW 63,292,386 among them.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, which established the obligation to pay the borrowed amount, Eul (hereinafter referred to as the "Appointed") may acknowledge the fact that "the plaintiff borrowed 70,000,000 won in total from the plaintiff on December 6, 2010 and 50,000,000 won on December 31, 2010 and borrowed 70,000,000 won in interest rate of 2.5% per annum (hereinafter referred to as "the loan certificate in this case"), with the seal affixed by the Appointed (Appointed Party C; hereinafter collectively referred to as "the plaintiff") and deliver it to the plaintiff with the seal affixed by the Appointer; the above loan certificate contains a seal affixed by the defendant Eul (appointed Party C; hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") to the plaintiff at the rate of 10,010,000 won to the plaintiff as joint and several surety interest rate of 10,010,000 won to the plaintiff.

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

A. The Defendant asserts that he/she transferred his/her claim amounting to KRW 70,000,00 to E and repaid the Selection’s loan obligation. Thus, according to the records of the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2-2, the Selection is acknowledged to have transferred his/her claim amounting to KRW 70,000,000 to E, but it is not deemed that the obligor transfers his/her claim to the Plaintiff with respect to the repayment of the obligation to the obligee, barring special circumstances, is presumed to have been transferred by means of a security or repayment for the repayment of the obligation, and it is not deemed that the assignment of claim to the obligee is a substitute for the repayment of the obligation. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the original claim is extinguished if the assignment of claim is made, and the obligor is exempted from the obligation only when the