1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Defendants exceeding the amount ordered to be paid under paragraph 2 below shall be revoked.

1. The facts of recognition are the Plaintiff’s fifth degree party accommodation, Defendant C’s wife, Defendant D’s children, and Defendant B and Defendant C’s children.

The Plaintiff loaned KRW 100 million to Defendant C from around 2004 to around 2010. As to this, on April 25, 2006, the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate to the effect that Defendant D would repay the loan amounting to KRW 50 million (No. 1-1), and May 17, 2010, Defendant D paid the loan amounting to KRW 50 million (the certificate No. 1-2 and Defendant C affixed the seal as a joint and several surety) incurred thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, Defendant C and Defendant B are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million, Defendant C and Defendant D jointly and severally, KRW 50 million, and interest for delay or delay delay.

In addition to the above money, the plaintiff argued to the effect that he additionally lent 70 million won to the defendant C and that the defendant B and D jointly and severally liable for the total amount. However, there is no supporting document, and there is no supporting document, and there is a lack to recognize facts as identical to the argument, and there is no other supporting evidence, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is rejected.

B. As to the defendants' defense, the defendants asserted that "each of the above loans borrowed interest without interest, and repaid 8,5860,000 won in total each month." Thus, according to the evidence No. 2, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant C has remitted the above amount to the plaintiff, but it is insufficient to recognize that it was remitted to the plaintiff for the repayment of the leased principal. Rather, in light of the fact that the money transferred each month, the size of the money transferred, the amount of money deposited each month, and the amount of money deposited periodically, the remittance was made under the pretext of interest payment.