1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The counterclaim defendant and the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be jointly and severally.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The reason why this court should explain is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Existence of loan claims;

A. In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, and 7 and evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7, the defendant lent 500,000 won to the plaintiff B without specifying the period of repayment and interest rate between 1998 and 199. After that, the defendant urged the plaintiff B to repay the above loan, the plaintiff company had taken over the loan of this case against the defendant on Nov. 12, 2001, and it was recognized that the defendant established the right to collateral security of this case to the defendant on Nov. 12, 2001, and each statement of No. 7 through No. 10 was insufficient to reverse the fact of recognition.

① The Defendant lent funds worth KRW 500,000,000 to the account under the name of the Plaintiff B, and the Defendant did not investigate the Plaintiff’s ability to repay or receive security from the Plaintiff at the time of the said lending.

② The Plaintiff Company borrowed the amount equivalent to the instant loan from the Plaintiff B and disbursed the amount for the purpose necessary for the operation of the Plaintiff Company, including the cost of expanding the gas station construction cost.

③ Plaintiff B, who urged the repayment of the instant loan, stated that the Defendant or D (a partner of Plaintiff B lent KRW 500,000,000 to Plaintiff B at the same time as the Defendant) “If the Plaintiff Company’s gas station owned is sold, the Plaintiff would repay the instant loan and the instant loan.”

④ On November 12, 2001, when two years have elapsed since the instant loan was received, the Plaintiff Company was the Defendant who was a mortgagee of the instant building for the Defendant.