1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6 as to the cause of the claim, defendant Eul borrowed 28 million won from the plaintiff on October 5, 2003 and decided to repay 500,000 won on the sixth day of each month. The defendant Eul guaranteed the obligation to repay the above borrowed money to the plaintiff. After that, the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff the above borrowed money to the plaintiff by December 2007. The plaintiff received the above borrowed money from the defendant Eul as the repayment of the borrowed money, and the plaintiff received KRW 300,000 won on June 28, 2006, and KRW 200,000 on August 2, 2006, and KRW 200,000 on August 31, 2006.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendants are obligated to pay the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 27.3 million to each plaintiff and delay damages.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants’ determination as to the assertion of non-obviousness’s expression of intent is based on the following: (a) each of the loan certificates in the name of the Defendants (Evidence A2 and 3) did not receive money from the Plaintiff to another person; and (b) as the Plaintiff did not receive money from the Plaintiff to the husband D, the Defendants merely prepared and sent it to D; (c) the Defendants did not actually borrowed the amount of each of the above loan certificates from the Plaintiff; and (d) the preparation of each of the above loan certificates was alleged to be a non-proof declaration of intent; and therefore, (e) the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendants asserted that the statute of limitations has expired, and thus, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments, Defendant B, at the time of borrowing KRW 28 million from the Plaintiff, can be acknowledged as having been a merchant operating the store in the apartment complex located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and Defendant B, the merchant, is presumed to have borrowed the above money from the Plaintiff, for business purposes (Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act), and the merchant is deemed to have operated the business.