1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and Defendant C’s appeal against the Plaintiff are all dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance, except where the plaintiff added the judgment identical to that of paragraph (2) to the plaintiff's assertion in this court. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff and Defendant C are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, except as provided in paragraph (2), and the fact-finding and determination in the first instance court are deemed legitimate even if both the Plaintiff and Defendant C’s allegations and evidence are comprehensively taken into account.

A. The plaintiff's assertion ① loaned the defendant C a total of KRW 311,940,00 to the defendant's business funds. The representative of the defendant Eul was aware of the above lending, or delegated both the defendant Eul's operating rights including the loan of the business funds. ② Even if not, the defendant C has the basic power of attorney as the husband of the defendant Eul and the auditor of the defendant Eul. The plaintiff believed that the defendant C had the power of attorney to borrow money on behalf of the defendant Eul, and ③ it is reasonable to interpret that the defendant B offered the account to receive money for the loan was directly responsible for the borrowing of money, or at least as a joint and several surety, and therefore, the defendant Eul is jointly and severally liable with the defendant C to pay the above KRW 311,940,000.

B. On the other hand, according to the above evidence, the parties to the instant lending and borrowing of money are both the Plaintiff and the Defendant C, and as alleged by the Plaintiff, even if Defendant C expressed that it would use the money as the Defendant B’s business fund at the time of borrowing money from the Plaintiff, and actually used it as the Defendant B’s business fund, insofar as Defendant C did not borrow money from the Plaintiff as the representative of Defendant B, Defendant C would jointly and severally repay the above borrowed money to the Plaintiff.