1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 292,00,000 and KRW 235,000 among them, Defendant C shall be from March 21, 2012 to March 29, 2016.

Plaintiff’s assertion

On March 15, 201, 200. 20, 200. 20,000 won on July 25, 201; 20,000 won on April 29, 201; 3,000,00 won on December 3, 201; 00,000 won on December 4, 200, 200. 3,000 won on June 16, 200, 200. 0. 10,00 won on August 5, 200, 200, 200. 10. 10,00 won on June 10, 201, 200 on June 10, 200, 200.

Defendant C, on October 19, 201, issued a certificate of borrowing that “on March 15, 201, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 220,000,000 from the Plaintiff,” and thereafter, Defendant C, on December 30, 201, borrowed KRW 235,00,000 in total, “on December 30, 201,” and repaid the borrowed amount of KRW 15,000,000 by March 20, 2012.

“The loan certificate was drawn up and issued.”

Therefore, the Defendants jointly and severally pay the above loans and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

The judgment by public notice as to the claim against Defendant C (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) is not sufficient to acknowledge that Defendant B borrowed KRW 292,00,000 from the Plaintiff on the sole basis of the respective descriptions of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s personal examination results as to the claim against Defendant B (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire arguments, namely, ① all of the loans asserted by the Plaintiff were deposited into Defendant C’s account; ② The Plaintiff merely deposited money into Defendant C’s account upon Defendant B’s instruction or request, and actually asserted that all of the Defendants were leased to the obligor. However, on October 201, 201.