1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant 30,857,142 won, Plaintiff C, and D respectively.

Basic Facts

A. From November 2007 to August 2014, F had the Defendant conduct medical treatment for the patients suffering from the above hospital on the condition that the medical institution, such as the medical room and the water treatment room, was installed in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, II, and III, and the Defendant, a doctor, reported the establishment of a medical institution with the name of Garyaryary medicine clinic in the name of the Defendant, and that the Defendant would pay KRW 9 million monthly benefit and the name lending fee, provided that the Defendant provided medical treatment for the patients suffering from the above hospital.

B. F is in the position of the Director General and the Director General during the above period to manage the financial account, etc. opened in the name of the Defendant while substantially managing the members of the GJ, and was in charge of the financial management, including the receipt of insurance money, the payment and management expenses, etc. of the hospital.

C. The F transferred KRW 100,000 to the Defendant’s IBK Bank account around July 26, 2013, as the Plaintiff D’s financial standing was not good, and the F needed operating funds. A transferred KRW 20,000 to F around 201, and around July 26, 2013.

Since then, A received from F a loan certificate stating “F the borrowed money of KRW 120 million (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”), creditor A, debtor, defendant, and joint and several sureties F” (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”). The debtor’s column of the instant loan certificate includes the name of the defendant, and the stamp image of the defendant’s name was affixed next to the loan certificate.

E. A died on January 6, 2015 while the instant lawsuit was pending, and Plaintiff B, the spouse of A, jointly inherited the Plaintiff C and D’s property at the ratio of 3/7 shares, and 2/7 shares, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 7, 9, plaintiff D principal questioning result of the court of first instance, judgment as to the primary claim of all pleadings

A. The Plaintiffs asserted by the parties as to whether to enter into a lending agreement between the Defendant and A, and on July 26, 2013 by A.