1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 35,00,000 and the Defendants B from January 15, 2010 to May 15, 2019.

In full view of the facts that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Eul was made several times with the defendant Eul and the repayment period of KRW 35 million is determined as one year after the plaintiff's performance statement (Evidence 1) as of January 14, 2009 (the first year of repayment) by service by public notice on the basis of the claim for the loan against the defendant Eul (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act) and the facts that the defendant Gap's claim against the defendant Eul was made by the defendant Eul (the plaintiff and the defendant did not dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the fact that the part related to the name was made by the defendant) and the whole purport of the statement and pleading as to the evidence No. 2, the plaintiff lent money to the defendant Eul several times and the plaintiff was determined as the repayment period of KRW 35 million between the defendant Eul and the defendant Eul on January 14, 2009.

Therefore, Defendant C, jointly and severally with Defendant B, has a duty to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35 million per annum from January 15, 2010 on the day following the due date for payment of the above loan principal and KRW 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 15, 2010 to December 18, 2018, on which the original copy of the instant payment order was served to Defendant C; and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings until May 31, 2019 and the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019; Presidential Decree No. 29768, Jun. 1, 2019).

On the other hand, Defendant C alleged that Defendant C repaid some of the money after the joint and several surety, but the above assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are justified, and each claim is accepted.