1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against Defendant B and the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

1. The Plaintiff’s basic facts are the head of the technology team of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), who is in charge of supervision and settlement of accounts for the collaborative companies requested to open the Internet, etc. by the said companies. The Defendants, as married couple, are registered as Defendant CF’s trade name and jointly conducted Internet-related businesses, and as they jointly conducted Internet-related businesses, there is no dispute between the parties.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and testimony of the first instance witness E, the plaintiff loaned KRW 5,000,000 to the defendant Eul's account, which is the defendant Eul's account, for September 30, 201, and KRW 30,000,000 to the defendant Eul's account, which is the business operator's account, after the defendants opened the business of F, and then lent KRW 5,00,00,000 to the defendant Eul around June 10, 201, respectively.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 65,00,000.

3. Determination on the defendants' defenses and counterclaims

A. The Defendants asserted that ① the Plaintiff received a refund from the Defendants to KRW 66,614,295 under the pretext of settling the opening fees between D and the Defendants, and thereby inflicted damages equivalent to the same amount on the Defendants by using them. ② The Defendants agreed with the Plaintiff to pay KRW 40,000,000, which was embezzled by the Plaintiff from D in lieu of paying the said borrowed amount as KRW 40,000,000, in lieu of paying the said borrowed amount, and ③ the Plaintiff purchased the vehicle under the name of Defendant C, and the Defendants paid KRW 13,784,763 of the vehicle price on behalf of the Defendants.