1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as stipulated in paragraph (2); and (b) the Plaintiff’s additional assertion is as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment as stipulated in paragraph (3) below; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with

2. The defendant company's 4th 7th 7th of the first instance court's ruling "the defendant company" shall be "the 4th 11th c) of the first instance court's ruling "A 3 through 12th c" of the fifth 21th c. "A 3 through 6,8 through 12th c." of the first instance court's ruling "the 14th 15th 1 and 15th 16, Gap evidence 17-1, 17-2, and 18 second 3th 10th 3th 3th 1, "the 2th 10th 3th 3th 10th 3th 3th 3th 1, "the 10th 10th 10th 1, 2 second 10th 3th 3th 12th 12th 12th 2th 3th 17th 2th 2th 3th 3th 3th 2 of the judgment".

3. Determination as to the plaintiff's assertion that there is no claim against D by the defendant company

A. As to the Defendant Company’s assertion that the monetary loan agreement (No. 18) that forms the basis for the payment order (No. 2015 No. 229) against Defendant Company D was made based on the actual claim for penalty, acceptance of the claim, and loan claims, the Plaintiff asserted that the penalty agreement was made in favor of the illegal loan, and thus, is in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable.