1. Defendant B’s KRW 10,000,000 and the following day for the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from June 25, 2015 to May 12, 2017.

1. The facts that the Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to Defendant B on September 2, 201, KRW 20 million on September 27, 2011, KRW 10 million on September 27, 201, and KRW 10 million on June 1, 2012 are no dispute between the parties.

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. Defendant B borrowed the above ①, ② total of KRW 20 million under the joint and several sureties of Defendant C and A, who is her husband, and the above ③ obligation KRW 10 million solely borrowed.

B. Defendant C and D granted the right of representation to borrow the said money in light of the fact that Defendant B borrowed the said money from the fund for the operation of a public restaurant with a cover of a waste restaurant.

C. Even if Defendant B did not grant the right of representation, Defendant B has the right of representation as the wife of Defendant C, and Defendant D also granted the basic right of representation in that it is entrusted with the seal imprint design and the certificate of seal imprint. Since Defendant B said that Defendant B borrowed money with the funds for the operation of the restaurant operated by the said Defendants, the Plaintiff is deemed to have a legitimate reason to believe that Defendant B had the right of representation for Defendant C and D under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

Even if Defendant B borrowed money from the Plaintiff without authority, the said Defendants confirmed Defendant B’s act of non-authorized representation on the ground that “the Defendants jointly and severally notified the Plaintiff E of the decision that “the payment of KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff not later than July 31, 2016,” in relation to the instant joint Plaintiff E’s claim prior to the separate confirmation.”

E. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the above ①, ② the sum of the borrowed money KRW 20 million, and Defendant B’s above ③ the borrowed money KRW 10 million, and damages for delay.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C and D

A. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 2-1 through 3, the defendant Eul borrowed KRW 10 million from the plaintiff on June 2, 201 and delivered to the plaintiff on June 2, 201.