1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is modified as follows.

The defendant shall be jointly and severally against the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

B transferred KRW 18,00,000 to the Plaintiff on April 15, 2015, and the Plaintiff transferred KRW 70,000 to the Defendant on the same day.

B On the same day, on May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a letter of performance (hereinafter “instant letter of performance”) stating that “60,000,000 won borrowed from the Plaintiff shall be repaid until May 15, 2015,” and the Defendant signed the said letter of performance as a joint and several surety.

B repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 10,00,000,000 on June 1, 2015, and KRW 10,000,00 on October 17, 2015, respectively.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 9 (including the provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the plaintiff's assertion of the parties to the amount loaned to Eul on April 15, 2015, as a result, about the defendant's side (i.e., KRW 70 million transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant's account - KRW 18 million paid to Eul). The plaintiff asserts that the amount loaned to Eul is KRW 52 million.

Around October 17, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 2 million among the above KRW 52 million to B with the Escoping cost and the value of the Escoping (No. 7) supervised by the Plaintiff. Around October 17, 2014, the Defendant asserted that, on the date of the competition (from October 24, 2014 to October 25, 2014), there are many empty parts, and the Plaintiff returned the said KRW 2 million to B, and that the Plaintiff loaned to B is KRW 50 million.

Judgment

Considering the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s loan to B is KRW 50 million.

On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff complained of B as fraud (the indictment was instituted on September 27, 2016), and on December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 18 million from B to the Defendant’s account at the time of investigating the witness, and stated the circumstance that he remitted KRW 70 million to the Defendant’s account, and the police asked the Plaintiff “whether he remitted the total amount of KRW 52 million to the Defendant account”, and the concept of “the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million.”