1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.

The Plaintiff, upon having requested the Defendant B to leave a vinyl, paid the Defendant C’s account totaling KRW 12,050,000 on November 15, 201 and KRW 12,050,000 on November 15, 201.

Defendant B paid KRW 7,00,000 on November 16, 201 to D who performs a vinyl house construction work. The Plaintiff called Defendant B’s vinyl construction work, and D returned KRW 4,60,000,000, excluding KRW 2,400,000, which was incurred to Defendant B on November 16, 201.

[Ground] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant B is obligated to pay the plaintiff the remainder of KRW 9,650,000, excluding the expenses incurred in the vinyl Corporation Corporation, and damages for delay.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant C was jointly and severally liable for the return of the above money, and that the plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with the defendant B.

The evidence consistent with the above argument states No. 2 that "the plaintiff confirmed the intent of joint and several sureties with Defendant C through telephone conversations and lent KRW 12,050,000 to Defendant B," but it is difficult to believe in light of the following: (a) although the above money is not a loan; (b) the plaintiff alleged that it was a loan at the first time; (c) the defendant B sent money to Defendant C’s account by asserting that it would be a vinyl; and (d) the plaintiff would bring money to the Defendant C account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200, Feb. 13, 2015).

In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize the joint and several guarantee by the entry of the evidence No. 1 of the defendant C, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant B did not have a duty to return the money received from the Plaintiff, as it spent all the container construction works requested by the Plaintiff.

However, the Plaintiff.