1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. The Defendants’ main defense against the Defendant’s main defense is determined. As the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant C and lost, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it goes against the res judicata of the said case. (B) The res judicata effect does not allow the subsequent suit identical to the subject matter of a judgment in the previous suit that has res judicata, as well as does not allow the subsequent suit. Even if the subject matter of a lawsuit is not the same as the subject matter of a prior suit, if the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit is prior to or contradictory to the prior suit, the subsequent suit does not allow any other assertion different from the judgment on the prior suit.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the loan claim against Defendant C, and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the loan claim against Defendant C, and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the loan claim against Defendant C, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the loan claim against Defendant C, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal on April 12, 2017 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da46114, Mar. 24, 1995; 9Da25785, Dec. 10, 199; 9Da18155, Jun. 9, 200; 9Da18155, Feb. 13, 2006).

According to the above facts, the previous suit and the instant suit are different between the parties, and the subject matter of lawsuit sought by the Plaintiff is separate, and both parties cannot be deemed to have a prior or contradictory relationship.

Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of the parties asserted that the plaintiff lent a total of KRW 20 million to the defendant B over 4-5 times, and the defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations, and the defendants thereafter repaid a total of KRW 6.7 million. The plaintiff on October 10, 2004 against the defendants and the remaining loans KRW 13.3 million.