1. The part against Defendant B in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. At the request of change in the trial:

1. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as follows, and this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the judgment, except for the addition or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

[Supplementary or supplementary parts] The second half of the judgment of the first instance.

In addition, the agreement at the time of the instant loan was set at 16% per annum.”

The third 3-4 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

“The debt balance of the instant loan as of May 24, 2017 is the total of KRW 131,59,080, overdue interest of KRW 82,422,286, and KRW 214,021,36.”

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment is as follows, and the reasoning for this decision is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the entry as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Each “Defendant” of the first instance court’s 15th, 4th, 3th, 18th, and 19th, shall be construed as “the Defendants”.

Part 4 through 16 of the first instance judgment.

2)B) The parts as to whether the extinctive prescription has expired are as follows:

“B) The instant loan obligation upon expiration of the extinctive prescription is to be repaid in installments for 60 months from August 25, 2009 to July 25, 2014 under the term modification agreement. The Defendants’ commencement of delinquency from October 25, 2009 after the second payment as seen earlier. Each of the above evidence is as follows: (i) Nos. 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 15 evidence (each statement including each number; (ii) the fact inquiry of the head of the branch office of Gangwon-gu branch office of the first instance on October 18, 2019; and (iii) the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the evidence as follows; (iv) the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed of money loan by which the principal and interest of the loan is to be repaid in installments from the Defendants on September 8, 2009 to July 25, 2014; and (iii) each obligor did not notify or notify the obligee of the loan.