The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap's Claim Nos. 1 through 4 (including all of the branch numbers) against defendant B, it can be recognized that the plaintiff lent KRW 100,000,000 to defendant B for the purpose of the corporate bond business fund around April 1995.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, Defendant B is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and damages for delay from the day following the due date.

B. The plaintiff's claim 1) The summary of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C was prepared with a cash custody certificate (Evidence 2) stating that the defendant C shall be liable for KRW 40,000,000 out of KRW 100,000 as it was jointly and severally borrowed KRW 1,000,000 from the plaintiff around April 1995 while running the bond business with the defendant B. The defendant C shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff 1,00,000,000 won out of the above loan amount of KRW 1,00,000,000, and its delay damages amount of KRW 40,000,000 among the above loan amount of KRW 1,000,000,000, KRW 2,000 (cash custody certificate) with the defendant B, and it is difficult for the defendant C to sign and seal only the signature of the defendant B, and the evidence submitted to the plaintiff C00,000, together with the above evidence.

It is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B agreed to hold the liability of KRW 40,000,000, out of KRW 100,000 borrowed from the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's argument against the defendant C is without merit.

2. Defendant B’s defense, etc. defenses that the above loan claim expired by the statute of limitations. Thus, as seen earlier, the fact that the repayment period of the above loan claim was around April 1997 is the same as mentioned above. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was ten years after the lapse of ten years from the lawsuit.