All appeals filed against the Defendants against the primary claim are dismissed.

Preliminary. added by this Court.

1. The grounds for this part of the basic facts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Paragraph 1), and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the primary claim is as follows: (a) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Paragraph (2) is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where “Sak” with three-way 17 lines is deemed as “Sak” as “Sak”.

(3) The first instance court’s judgment on the conjunctive claim is justifiable in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court’s evidence No. 8.3. As such, it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to recognize only KRW 1,00,000 as to Defendant B, and to compensate for the amount that the Defendants owned or received, and if so, Defendant B should pay KRW 35,00,000 as the recipient of the borrowed money.

We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the conjunctive claim of this case.

The purport of the claim in civil procedure shall be specified in detail so that its contents and scope can be clearly identified, and whether an objection is specified is an ex officio examination. Therefore, in cases where the purport of the claim is not specified, the court shall order ex officio correction regardless of the defendant's objection, and shall dismiss the lawsuit if the defendant does not comply with it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da53785, Nov. 12, 2009; 201Da17090, Sept. 8, 2011). The Defendants’ “amount accumulated or received” can not be readily known solely on the basis of the purport of the claim.

Therefore, this Court ordered the Plaintiff to correct, but did not comply with the order, so the claim for this portion is unlawful and dismissed.

4. Conclusion.