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

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

1. On December 28, 2009, when the loan agreement was made on the date of lending Nos. 10,000,000 as the borrower, May 31, 2010, when the loan agreement was made, the Defendants on July 31, 2010, on March 5, 2010, respectively, and on August 31, 2010, on August 27, 2010, when the Defendants on March 20, 200, up to the aggregate of the Defendants on July 20, 200, when the Defendants were to be on the date of lending No. 10,000,000 on March 27, 200, when the Defendants were to be on July 6, 200,000; Amended by Presidential Decree No. 103358, Jul. 31, 200; Presidential Decree No. 17234, Oct. 16, 2010>

A. D loaned the following money to the Defendants.

B. D A deceased on May 18, 2017, and the Plaintiff became a sole heir.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 1 through 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff, the heir of D, the sum of the borrowed money, KRW 180 million, and damages for delay.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the defendants' defense of extinctive prescription (1) 1 and 10, the defendants are recognized as being the merchants who run each construction business at the time of borrowing money of this case. Article 47 (1) of the Commercial Act provides that "any act performed by the merchants for business shall be deemed commercial activity." Thus, each act of borrowing money of this case committed by the defendants as merchants is presumed to be conducted for business (Article 47 (2) of the Commercial Act), and each of the above lending certificates was presumed to be conducted by the defendants (Article 47 (2) of the Commercial Act). In addition, the defendants did not indicate that they are the merchants, as well as provided the registration certificate of housing owned by the defendant C

The presumption of presumption is not reversed.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the loan of KRW 100 million was used as a cost for constructing a new E-care center operated by the Defendants, and that the loan of KRW 100 million was not an act for business purposes. According to the evidence No. 11 and No. 4, the above loan of KRW 100 million was deposited into the Defendant B’s account on June 25, 2010.