1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for KRW 2.4 million and Defendant B with respect thereto from September 1, 2016, and Defendant D with respect thereto.

1. Determination of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Evidence No. 6-1) (Evidence No. 6-1) (Evidence No. 6-1) (Evidence No. 8), the fact-finding on the E-Myeon of this court, and the result of this court's request for the appraisal of the seals of this court, it is recognized that the following seal No. 1 in the name of the defendant B was based on the above defendant's seal imprint, and according to the witness F's witness F's testimony and the whole purport of oral argument, it is recognized that the signature following the defendant's name is the above defendant's signature, and the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been formed, in full view of the overall purport of the statements No. 3, No. 4,5, and No. 1 through No. 10 and some testimony of the witness F's testimony, the plaintiff stated that the above defendant's real estate development business conducted by the above defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 6-1 as the plaintiff's investment certificate No. 30 million won (No. 5 million won). 2000, Sep. 15, 20000.

Meanwhile, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendants paid to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million on May 30, 2015, KRW 27.6 million on September 24, 2015, and KRW 77.6 million on the aggregate.

The Plaintiff alleged that he lent KRW 90 million to Defendant B and D on October 9, 2005. However, the evidence No. 1-2 (Evidence No. 6-2) of the evidence No. 1-2 of the evidence No. 1-2 of the witness No. 1-2 of the witness No. 6-2 of the witness No. 1 cannot be admitted as evidence because there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The witness F’s testimony corresponding to the Plaintiff’s assertion is the Plaintiff’s mother, and the Plaintiff through the witness.