1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable.

A. From January 1, 2012 to June 1, 2018, 50,000 won to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and its related thereto.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 as to the cause of the claim, defendant Eul prepared a cash custody certificate (a evidence No. 1; hereinafter referred to as "the cash custody certificate of this case") to the effect that "50 million won shall be returned to the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter the plaintiff Eul) after keeping the plaintiff's guarantee by December 31, 2011 under the defendant Eul's guarantee on May 23, 2011, and the defendants paid 10 million won to the designated party D (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff D") until September 30, 201.

The facts are as follows. The Defendants did not acquire the right to operate a bridge at the construction site of E, and they did not have the intent or ability to pay the proceeds of the brin restaurant to Plaintiff D. Defendant B, on November 7, 201, determined and borrowed KRW 50,000,000 from Plaintiff A as the due date for repayment on December 7, 2011, and there is no other counter-proof evidence. Unless special circumstances exist, the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay to Plaintiff A the agreed amount of KRW 50,000,000 as stipulated in the cash storage certificate of this case, and the annual interest rate of KRW 10,00,000 from the following day after the due date for payment to Plaintiff D from the date following the due date to September 31, 201 to the date following the due date, and the annual interest rate of KRW 50,000,000 and KRW 50,000 from the next day to the due date to 215,2018.

2. As to Defendant C’s assertion, the above amount agreed to be paid to the Plaintiffs is investments, and Defendant C alleged that the amount was not the amount loaned to the Defendant, the following circumstances, i.e., acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence.