1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is KRW 10,00,000 and 25% per annum from May 17, 1997 to September 14, 2015;

1. The remaining Defendants except Defendant C

A. Claim No. 1) The plaintiff, as to the defendant Eul, has a loan of KRW 10 million against the defendant Eul in the Daegu District Court on August 14, 1997, since the plaintiff had a loan of KRW 97Da808, which was due to the final judgment of the Supreme Court of Daegu District on August 14, 1997, and the plaintiff sought reimbursement against the defendant Eul 2,50,000 won on June 26, 2006, and 2,44,00 won on July 16, 2007, respectively. The plaintiff sought payment of KRW 19,50,000 won on the defendant Eul and F under the joint and several surety of the defendant FF on November 28, 2007, and therefore, the plaintiff lent the loan of KRW 100,000 to the defendant Eul under the joint and several surety under Article 208 (3) of the former Civil Procedure Act.

2. If Defendant C’s evidence No. 4 (including the serial number) added the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant C may be recognized as having borrowed KRW 49,400,00 from the Plaintiff in the form of a gold player order. Thus, barring any special circumstance, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of KRW 49,40,00 and annual rate of KRW 5% as prescribed by the Civil Act from September 26, 2007 to October 5, 2016, which is the date of this decision, and from the next day to the date of full payment, 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

As to this, Defendant C asserted that he paid part of the amount to the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.