1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows. The defendant Eul, a joint guarantor of the judgment of the court of first instance, added "A 4 and 6" to "the grounds for recognition" of the second part of the judgment of the court of second instance, and used the same part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. The defendants' new arguments in the trial of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition of the judgment as follows. Thus, according to the above facts of recognition as stated in the main part of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the defendant Eul, a joint guarantor of the judgment of the court of first instance, jointly and severally with the defendant Eul, is jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff the loan amounting to 52 million won and the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case to November 15, 2016 on the record that the defendant Eul is a delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of each lawsuit from 15% to November 15.

3. Additional determination

A. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff invested KRW 80 million in D, not Defendant B, but the Plaintiff invested KRW 80 million. However, according to Party A’s certificate (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) and Party A’s following 4 (Kakakao Stockholm dialogue content), it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff invested KRW 80 million in Defendant B. Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion on this part is without merit.

Although the Defendants asserted to the effect that the instant loan certificate was prepared by the Plaintiff’s deception, the evidence alone cannot be recognized as having been drafted by the Plaintiff’s deception, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the first instance court against Defendant B is partly unfair, but only the Defendants appealed, the judgment of the first instance court cannot be modified disadvantageous to Defendant B in the instant case, and the judgment of the first instance court against Defendant C is not possible.