1. Defendant B’s KRW 70,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 31, 2015 to July 30, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the claim against defendant B and the purport of the entire pleadings, the purport of the plaintiff's loan Nos. 1 and 2 is as follows: (a) on the request of defendant B; (b) on July 30, 2013; (c) on March 18, 2014, on the account under the name of the defendant C; (d) on December 19, 2014, totaling KRW 30,000,000; and (e) on the 30,000,000,000,000 won per annum from the day following August 15, 2013; and (e) on the 30,000,000,0000 won per annum from September 30, 2013; and (e) on the loan of KRW 20,700,000 per annum from the day following the borrowing date to the plaintiff.

2. As to the determination of the claim against the defendant C and D, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant C and D would be liable to the guarantor if they remitted money to the defendant C and D's family members, and that the defendant C and D would have known that they would be liable to the guarantor if they remitted money to the defendant C and D's account. The defendant C and D would have ratified or implicitly consented to the obligation to pay the joint and several liability by lending the name of the account to the defendant C and D. Thus, the defendant C and D were jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff with the defendant C and D. However, they asserted that the defendant C and D would be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of KRW 30 million,00,000, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the obligation to pay the joint and several liability of the defendant C and D. Thus, the above assertion by the plaintiff is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the claim against the defendant C and D is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.