The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Defendants amounting to KRW 70,000,000 on the Plaintiff and January 2, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 16, 2007, the Plaintiff paid KRW 70 million to the Defendants, the married couple, by means of remitting them to the deposit account in the name of Defendant B, the mother of Defendant B.

B. The Defendants used the above KRW 70 million to purchase shares of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) in a special relationship with the workplace transaction partner company accompanying Defendant C (hereinafter “E”).

C. On July 9, 2009, July 2009, and August 25, 2009, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail demanding the Defendants to pay KRW 70 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In full view of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, D’s relationship, remittance details, the user of the said money, and the circumstances before and after the remittance of the said money, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants borrowed the said KRW 70 million from the Plaintiff without having set the interest or the due date for payment. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the said KRW 70,000,000 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 31, 2018 to the date following the final delivery of the copy of the instant complaint.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants borrowed KRW 70 million with the intent to bear joint and several liability at the time.

However, each evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants borrowed KRW 70 million with the intent to bear joint and several obligations at the time, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, in light of the fact that the Defendants used the above KRW 70 million for stock investment, it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ obligations constitute a daily household liability.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

3. The defendants' assertion and the judgment of this Court are stated in this part.