All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the court’s determination is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding some judgments under paragraph (2) below. As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third and seventh parallel judgments of the first instance court shall be amended to “17.946”.

The following shall be added to the 3rd judgment of the first instance court which contains no evidence:

“(In other words, according to the results of the financial transaction information reply to D Co., Ltd. and E, most of the funds transferred from the Plaintiff are deemed to have been used for a normal daily purpose.”

2. Parts to be determined additionally

A. The Defendants asserted that Gap evidence Nos. 1 (hereinafter “instant commitment”) and Gap evidence No. 5 (hereinafter “the tea certificate”) have been made by coercion or intimidation, but each description of Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

B. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim based on the instant letter of undertaking, etc. is groundless, since they repaid all the money borrowed from the Plaintiff from January 2012 to September 2018.

According to the records of Gap evidence No. 2-1, No. 2, Eul evidence No. 3-2, and No. 3-3, it is recognized that the defendants transferred to the plaintiff more amount than the amount transferred by the plaintiff during the above period.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, are as follows, namely, monetary transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and the Plaintiff appeared to have been subject to the bond rate. While the Plaintiff appears to have transferred to the Defendants, the details of the Defendants’ repayment are not only principal, but also the Defendants’ repayment were included. The Plaintiff’s remaining loan amounts up to October 2013 are one lane.