1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60 million and its amount from August 16, 2003 to July 21, 2017.

1. As to the claim against Defendant C, the Plaintiff asserted that the representative director of the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) lent KRW 80 million to Defendant C around August 2003 at the request of Defendant C, which was the Defendant Company’s representative director, and sought payment of the principal and interest of the loan against Defendant C. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above KRW 80 million to Defendant C solely on the basis of the entries in subparagraphs 1 through 4 and the testimony of the witness D is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company

A. In full view of the statement No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the witness D’s testimony, the Plaintiff may, upon the request of the branch of the Plaintiff around August 2003, recognize that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 60 million from G and two other persons on August 15, 2003 to the Defendant company, which had conducted the construction and implementation business of the main apartment complex by redevelopmenting the F located in Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E at the request of the branch of the Plaintiff, with the maturity of three months after the due date set at three months, and that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 60 million from the Defendant company (the above branch of the Plaintiff transferred the money borrowed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant company account) and there is no counter-proof.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that it lent KRW 60 million to the Defendant Company to KRW 80 million. However, in light of the witness witness D’s testimony, it is insufficient to recognize that the statement of KRW 60 million, which was recognized as above, was not sufficient to recognize that it lent KRW 20 million in addition to the above-mentioned KRW 60 million, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant company is obliged to pay to the plaintiff 60 million won and delay damages.

B. (1) The defendant's assertion in the party's defense is a defense that the extinctive prescription of the above loan claim has expired, and as a result, the plaintiff has approved several debts by the defendant company by 2015, it is re-appealed that the extinctive prescription has been interrupted

(2) Therefore, judgment is possible.