1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment shall be revoked.

The Defendants shall be jointly and severally.

1. On August 25, 2006, the Plaintiff asserted that he lent KRW 100,000,000 to Defendant B with the maturity of four months after August 25, 2006, and Defendant B asserted that the above KRW 100,000,000 was merely a money lent by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff and delivered it to D.

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 100,000,00 to Defendant B on August 25, 2006, although there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, i.e., the Plaintiff asserted that the above money was borrowed from the Plaintiff, i.e., the Plaintiff asserted that it was the money that he borrowed from the Plaintiff; ii) the Plaintiff did not state the above money as a loan to Defendant B in the details of the money transaction directly prepared by Defendant B in order to adjust the details of the money transaction with Defendant B. In light of the above facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above 100,000,000 won to Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part is without merit.

(1) The plaintiff's written response on April 2, 2013 was presented on April 2, 2013 by the first instance court's date for pleading on April 3, 2013 to the effect that Defendant B led to the confession of the above 100,000,000 won loan obligations. However, the above written response contains that "the defendant couple received money from the plaintiff." However, the plaintiff used the 70,000,000 won for the land development cost in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and the 37,00,000 won was already repaid. The plaintiff and the defendants agreed on the loan and repayment of the plaintiff's assertion. The plaintiff's argument will be discussed in detail at the next time. It cannot be deemed that the above written statement is a confession of the above 10,000,000 won obligation, and the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted).