1. The part against Defendant B in the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows:

Defendant B shall be the Plaintiff 4,00.

1. Claim against the defendant B

A. Considering the absence of dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim or the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1-2 and 2, the plaintiff lent KRW 4,000,000 to the defendant B on December 18, 2006 without fixing the interest and the due date for payment.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loans of KRW 4,000,000 and damages for delay to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. As to Defendant B’s defense, Defendant B asserted that the Plaintiff’s above loan claim expired by lapse of the ten-year statute of limitations, even though the ten-year statute of limitations expires.

On December 18, 2006, before the lapse of 10 years from December 18, 2006, the Plaintiff’s above loan claims are general civil claims, and the period of extinctive prescription is 10 years, and the Plaintiff’s above loan claims against Defendant B are obvious in the record that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the instant loan claims on November 21, 2016. Thus, the Defendant’s defense is without merit.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4,00,000 and the damages for delay calculated by the ratio of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from December 19, 2016, which is the date following the lending date, to July 12, 2017, which is the date when the first instance court rendered a substantial decision, to the effect that the Defendant’s appeal as to the existence and scope of the above loans and the damages for delay calculated by the ratio of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the plaintiff was jointly and severally liable with the defendant Eul for the repayment of the above loan, since he borrowed 4,000,000 won to the passbook in the name of the defendant C designated by the defendant Eul upon receiving a request for lending money from the defendant Eul on December 18, 2006.

B. The judgment is based on the Plaintiff’s statement at the date of pleading of the instant case, but there is no one-off with Defendant C, and there is no one-off request from Defendant B to lend money.