1. As to KRW 157,00,000 among the Plaintiff and KRW 150,000,000 among the Plaintiff, the primary Defendant is from August 1, 2008 to August 11, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, around 2005, lent KRW 7 million to Defendant B within the maturity date.

B. The Plaintiff loaned to Defendant B the amount of KRW 100 million on April 20, 2007, KRW 5 million on May 31, 2007, and KRW 45 million on June 1, 2007, respectively, by setting the interest rate of KRW 24% per annum and the maturity date within the number of payment days.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the primary claim, the primary defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 157,00,000 won with the interest rate of 24% per annum from August 1, 2008 to August 11, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, as claimed by the plaintiff, with the agreement calculated by the rate of 24% per annum from August 1, 2008 to August 11, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from August 1, 2008 to August 11, 201, and with the interest rate of 5% per annum from the Civil Act to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and with the interest rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

On April 20, 2007, the primary defendant claimed that the loans of KRW 100 million were remitted to the preliminary defendant C's account at the request of the primary defendant, but he used the above money, which is the primary defendant's seat, so there is no obligation to repay it.

However, even if E used the above KRW 100 million, it is the primary defendant to borrow the above KRW 100 million from the plaintiff. Therefore, it is the primary defendant to bear the obligation to repay the above KRW 100 million to the plaintiff. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. Without any legal ground from the plaintiff's main point of the plaintiff's assertion, the conjunctive defendant C received 10 million won on April 20, 2007, and the conjunctive defendant D received 45 million won on June 1, 2007, respectively, and acquired it. Thus, the conjunctive defendant C shall return the unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 10 million, and the conjunctive defendant D shall return the unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 45 million.