1. Defendant C’s KRW 11,930,396 to Plaintiff A and its equivalent from April 2, 2015, and KRW 28,883,698 to Plaintiff B and its equivalent.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, on March 25, 2013, lent to Defendant C a total of KRW 31.4 million on April 1, 2013, KRW 29 million on April 1, 2013, KRW 31.4 million on May 3, 2013, and KRW 5% on interest, respectively.

B. On April 29, 2015, Plaintiff B transferred the above loan claim against Defendant C by E.

C. Defendant C filed a lawsuit claiming fees (Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap53277, Seoul Central District Court 2013 Gohap53277) against G Housing Rebuilding Project Association under the name of Company F, one of which he/she is his/her representative, and subsequently received KRW 260,2350,000 from the trust company, etc. under an agreement with the above union. Some of the remaining money remaining after repayment of the F’s debt, was remitted to Defendant D through the agent of

On January 5, 2015, Defendant D paid KRW 11,875,00 to Plaintiff A, and KRW 15,770,00 to Plaintiff B, respectively, according to Defendant C’s instruction, and paid KRW 11,875,00 to Plaintiff A on April 1, 2015.

E. The Defendants are legal couple.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against Defendant D

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant D agreed to pay the Defendant C’s debt to the Plaintiffs, and that is not so.

Even if Defendant D used the money deposited by Defendant C as living expenses, etc. as the spouse of Defendant C, and Defendant D bears the obligation based on the right of common home affairs, Defendant D has the obligation to pay the unpaid loan to the Plaintiffs jointly and severally with Defendant C.

B. (1) There is no evidence to support the conclusion that Defendant D agreed to pay Defendant C’s debt to the Plaintiffs when it received the winning payment of the said fee in the instant case.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

Dol Daily Agency's argument is the same.