Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant C in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked and revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where a part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 2nd sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 2nd sentence, the 13th sentence, and the 3th sentence of the 4th sentence, all of the "witnesss" have been put into "witnesss of the first instance trial".

The statement of No. 14 of the 2th judgment of the court of first instance shall be made by making the statement "as a witness".

No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as the "defluence to trust") shall be applied to the "competence to accept" of the second 16 conduct.

The "loan" of No. 2 on the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be made in the form of "loan".

The third-party 7 to 10-party 7 shall be followed by the following:

“C. Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delayed damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 5, 2019 to May 31, 2019, and from the following day to the day of full payment, as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., of Loan 87,800,000 and the amount of delayed damages calculated at the respective rate of 12% per annum.

[....]

2. The conclusion of the judgment of the first instance as to Defendant C is justifiable, and the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed, and the conclusion against Defendant C is partially unfair, among the judgment of the first instance, and the part against Defendant C in the judgment of the first instance, which partially accepted Defendant C’s appeal and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C, which exceeds the above recognized amount among the judgment of the first instance, and the conclusion against Defendant C in the judgment of the first instance as to the remainder of the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and thus, Defendant C’s remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided