1. Of the part against Defendant D in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant D regarding the claim for loans is in question.

1. Claim for each loan to Defendant B and C

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17 as to the cause of the claim, the above amount shall be lent to the defendant Eul, from February 22, 2012 to July 21, 2012, by remitting the sum of KRW 13,100,000 to the account under the name of the defendant Eul as shown in attached Form No. 2, as stated in attached Table 2, from March 20, 2012 to July 23, 2012, the above amount shall be lent to the above amount of KRW 24,60,000 as stated in attached Table 2, and the plaintiff may not be accepted as the sum of KRW 10,00,000 as stated in attached Table No. 2, 200 to the above amount of KRW 50,000,000 as stated in attached Table No. 2, 160.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 15,400,000 after deducting the remainder of KRW 22,30,000,00 which the Plaintiff was paid from the total amount of KRW 37,70,000 ( KRW 13,100,600,000) of the above loan and the delay damages for the aforementioned amount, and (2) Defendant C is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 42,00,000 ( KRW 45,50,000,000) of the total amount of the above loan and KRW 45,000 ( KRW 45,50,500,000), which the Plaintiff was paid, and the delay damages for the aforementioned amount.

B. As to the defense, etc. 1, the above Defendants denied that they did not borrow the above money from the Plaintiff under the pretext of the payment of the value of the right to receive the deposit, but according to each of the above evidence, the above Defendants have the right to receive the deposit against Defendant D.