1. Defendant B, among the judgment of the court of first instance, exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person engaged in civil engineering work as E, and the defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant company") is a company engaging in construction business, and the defendant C is a inside director of the defendant company and a person who actually operates the defendant company.

B. Around February 2014, the Defendant Company entered into a production consignment agreement with G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) on consignment to implement the blasting operation from the blasting operation to the front line operation among the soil and sand gathering development projects promoted by G in the Republic of Tae-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.

C. On February 15, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10,000,000 to the account in the G name, and KRW 40,000,000 on February 17, 2014, respectively.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On February 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant C, who operates the Defendant Company, lent KRW 50,000,000 for construction costs of G to the Defendant Company. Upon receiving the request from the Defendant C to lend KRW 50,000,000 for construction costs of G, the Plaintiff wired the above money to G account in the name of G, and the Defendant C guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation as the actual operator.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 50,000,000 and interest and delay damages.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the Defendants asked Defendant C to participate in the quarrying projects promoted by G through Defendant C, and lent KRW 50,000 to G directly during the process of G’s consent. The Defendants did not borrow or guarantee money from the said Plaintiff.

G transferred the amount of KRW 10,00,000 on July 20, 2017 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 20,000,000 on June 5, 2018, and partially repaid the loan to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. The other party to a monetary loan claims that the Plaintiff remitted money to G while lending money to the Defendant Company, and the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff lent money directly to G, which is a matter of whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company recognize a cash loan.

Gap evidence 2 1, 2, 2.