1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. As to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay the said loan and damages for delay to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff lent the Defendants a KRW 5 million on October 27, 201, and KRW 15 million on April 28, 2012.

If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to each of the statements in Gap 1, Gap 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff loaned 5 million won to the defendants on October 27, 201, and the plaintiff extended 15 million won to defendant C on April 28, 2012, and there is no counter-proof.

On April 28, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 15 million to Defendant B, and around May 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants lent KRW 4 million to the Defendants and received only KRW 2.5 million. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion solely with the statement of evidence No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. According to the above facts, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant C for the payment of the total amount of KRW 20 million, and the amount of KRW 5 million out of the total amount of KRW 20 million, as well as the amount of KRW 5 million from November 9, 2016 following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the Plaintiff, and the Defendants are liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 25, 2018, which is the date of the judgment of the first instance, until January 25, 2018, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. As to the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted to the effect that all of the above loans borrowed from the Plaintiff were repaid. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendants: (a) ordered Defendant C to operate a gambling place; and (b) used all the money borrowed from the Plaintiff as the studio rental cost and the cost of using and managing the gambling place; (c) thus, the Plaintiff’s loan.