1. The part against Defendant C among the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is dismissed.

2...

1. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the defendant B, and the defendant B is obligated to pay the above loan and the damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. On February 26, 2009, no dispute exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the said money to the account of the NACF in the name of Defendant B on February 26, 2009, but it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff lent the said money to Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the purport of Gap evidence 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 through 3, witness witness D's testimony and arguments, ① A borrowed money from the plaintiff upon introduction of defendant Eul, ② The plaintiff entrusted with D's authority to prepare notarial deeds on behalf of the plaintiff himself/herself shall pay interest of 15 million won per annum to D on February 28, 2009, term of payment of 18% per annum, D's compulsory execution on its own property at the time of default, and D's 209.3 billion won can be recognized as compulsory execution on its own property, and Eul's 209.3 billion won shall be transferred to 305% per annum, 209.4 billion won shall be determined separately from the above 9.3 billion won per 9% per annum, and 209.4 billion won shall be 9% per annum and 305% per annum, respectively between the plaintiff and 209.4.5 billion won per annum.

According to the above facts of recognition, a person who borrowed KRW 15 million from the plaintiff is D, and the defendant B receives the loan amounting to KRW 10 million from the plaintiff.