1. Preliminary Defendant: 460,000,000 won and 24% per annum from August 20, 2012 to July 6, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. On August 20, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased KRW 460,000,000 to the primary Defendant as the down payment for the removal business by the primary Defendant, with the interest rate of KRW 2% per month and the due date of repayment as of October 20, 2012.

Therefore, the primary defendant is liable to pay the above loans and damages for delay, and the conjunctive defendant is liable to pay the above loans and damages for delay.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment as to the claim against the primary defendant, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff can be acknowledged that he transferred KRW 460,000,000 to the primary defendant's bank account, which had a relationship with the primary defendant on August 20, 2012, to the primary defendant's bank account (hereinafter "the payment of this case"). However, as alleged by the plaintiff, it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent the payment of this case to the primary defendant, just because the primary defendant transferred the payment of this case by accompanying the plaintiff, as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the purport of the evidence No. 6-1, No. 2, No. 7, and No. 2-1 of the evidence No. 6-2 and the whole pleadings, the conjunctive Defendant borrowed the instant payment from the Plaintiff through the primary Defendant while investing in D’s removal work (the conjunctive Defendant, at the time of interrogation of the case in which the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the conjunctive Defendant by fraud, stated that “investment” was made with respect to the said payment, but the conjunctive Defendant stated that “the said payment was made during the period when he returned the interest and principal of the said money and the profits accrued later,” and that the Plaintiff’s claim against the primary Defendant is without merit.

3. Determination on the claim against the conjunctive defendant

(a) Indication of claims: It is as described in paragraph (1); and

(b) Applicable provisions: Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act which is deemed as a confession by a absence on the date of pleading;