1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasons for the explanation on this part of the basic facts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(However, “Defendant B” is deemed to be “B”). 2. Determination as to the primary cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant jointly borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff and each of the instant claims was made by the Defendant with the authority to make a preparation. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 120 million as stated in each of the instant notes and the damages for delay to the borrowed principal. 2) The borrowing of the said money on behalf of the Defendant constitutes a common agent, not only constitutes a common agent, but also the borrowing of money by B beyond its authority based on the foregoing common agent authority under Article 126 of the Civil Act, even if it was borrowed in excess of its authority, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff.

B. 1) As to the assertion that the Defendant is liable as a direct borrower, the reasoning for this part is as stated in the fourth 13th of the judgment of the court of first instance, “No. 13,” and the subsequent 2nd of the judgment except for the addition of the following: therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(However, “Defendant B” is deemed to be “B,” and “Defendant C” is deemed to be “Defendant B,” and the main text of the instant loan certificate clearly indicated “B in borrowing,” and the debtor was indicated as “B,” and the Defendant’s bank account number is only indicated, and the Defendant also does not appear to have indicated that the loan is made together with the debtor. ② The Plaintiff asked the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s registry through a preparatory document dated March 31, 2016 to the certified judicial scrivener’s office, but the Plaintiff was also able to hold the Defendant liable for the repayment only with the instant loan certificate.