1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant corporation B is revoked, and the plaintiff falls under the above revoked part.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 50,000,000 in total to E’s account three times from December 26, 2012 to December 31, 201 of the same month (hereinafter “No. 1”).

B. On December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 20,000,00 to the account of Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

C. Defendant C is working as the representative director of the Defendant Company from August 20, 2012 to November 25, 2013 at the time of incorporation of the Defendant Company; and Defendant D is working as the representative director of the Defendant Company from November 26, 2013 to November 26, 2013; and E is the auditor of the Defendant Company and the Plaintiff C and D.

The deceased on July 19, 2014, Defendant C, D, and E’s father, died on or around July 19, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 7, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff loaned KRW 10 million to the Defendant Company by transferring KRW 20 million to the Defendant Company’s account at the request of Defendant C and D, and KRW 70 million to the Defendant Company’s account. (2) The Defendant Company is merely an individual company of Defendant C and D with no substance due to the de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto of the Defendant Company, and Defendant C and D are liable to pay KRW 1

3. However, around July 4, 2014, Defendant C paid KRW 10,305,508 to the Plaintiff out of KRW 10,305,50,000, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the remainder to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendants asserted that they did not borrow KRW 1 and 2 from the Plaintiff. There was no fact that the networkF borrowed KRW 1 and 2 from the Plaintiff, and there was money transaction with the Plaintiff prior to the creation, and in this case, the Defendants and E borrowed the passbook in their name to the networkF.

3. Determination

A. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 1 to E’s account and KRW 2 to the Defendant Company’s account is recognized as above, and the Plaintiff’s statement Nos. 7 and 13 and the result of the first instance court’s order to submit financial transaction information to our banks is all pleadings.