1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant B added at the trial.

1. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant B and the defendant D

A. The Plaintiff’s claim as to the primary claim against Defendant B (A) was asserted on July 14, 2009, that the Plaintiff lent KRW 12 million to Defendant B (Evidence A1), KRW 3 million on May 3, 2010, and KRW 10 million on August 17, 2011, and KRW 25 million (Evidence A2-1 and 2). The Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 25 million and damages for delay.

B) (1) No dispute exists between the parties to the determination of the cause of the claim, or evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff and Defendant B, at an elementary school from July 2006, lent money to Defendant B by means of lending money, allowing Defendant B to use his card, etc., and Defendant B also paid a certain amount monthly amount. The Plaintiff and Defendant B, around July 14, 2009, prepared a loan certificate of KRW 12 million (including the card’s use amount, and with Defendant B’s intent to confirm the outstanding amount of loan amount of KRW 12 million, and with Defendant B’s intent to repay, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 3 million to Defendant B by means of depositing it into Defendant D’s account on May 3, 2010.

According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of the above loans of KRW 15 million and damages for delay, except in extenuating circumstances.

Furthermore, according to Gap evidence No. 2, it is recognized that the plaintiff deposited KRW 10 million in the E account on August 17, 2011, but this is below, although it is recognized that the plaintiff deposited KRW 10 million in the E account.

2.(a)

As examined in the claim, Defendant B’s debt of KRW 10 million borrowed from E upon the Plaintiff’s introduction is repaid on behalf of the Plaintiff, and it cannot be said that the Plaintiff itself lent to Defendant B, and otherwise, the Plaintiff on August 17, 201.