1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and the ancillary claim against Defendant C added at the trial.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the court's explanation of this case is as follows: (b) No. 2, No. 2, No. 19 of the judgment of the first instance; (c) "No. 22, 2011" "No. 22, 201; and "Defendant D" of No. 3, No. 15; (d) "the result of this court's response to the order to submit financial transaction information to Daegu Bank" of the first instance court; (e) "the result of reply to the order to submit financial transaction information to Daegu Bank of the first instance court"; (e) " witness D's testimony" is as "the testimony of the first instance court"; and (e) "the result of reply to the inquiry of the fact to the head of this court's Daegu head of the Gu of the first instance" is modified as "the result of the inquiry of fact"; and (e) the judgment of the first instance court, including the judgment of the Plaintiff raised in the trial, is partially added or used as follows, and the judgment of the first instance judgment.

2. The portion of the judgment of the first instance court No. 5, No. 21 to No. 5, No. 23 of the judgment of the first instance court is as follows. Defendant C filed a complaint against Defendant C as follows. Defendant C filed a complaint against the charge of forging each of the instant loan certificates. Defendant C received a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that there was insufficient evidence of guilt in addition to D’s confession as a result of investigation by the investigative agency, but Defendant C received a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that there was insufficient evidence in addition to D’s confession. Upon Defendant C’s application for a ruling of the first instance court, the Daegu High Court rendered a decision to institute a public prosecution (Evidence No. 12) against D as of September 21, 2016, and now Daegu High Court No. 2016 Godan5078 was pending.”

4. Determination on the ancillary claim against Defendant C

A. If D’s ancillary cause of the Plaintiff’s each of the instant loans is forged, D borrowed money from the Plaintiff without intent or ability to repay, which constitutes a tort. In this process, Defendant C is well aware of the fact that D had no ability to repay.