2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. Plaintiff A is the representative director of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), and Defendant B is the executive officer of the Nonparty Company.

B. On June 1, 2013, Defendant A entered into a contract for the appointment of the head of the center, and Defendant D entered into a contract for the appointment of the head of the branch and served in the non-party company.

C. On October 10, 2013, the Plaintiffs deposited 50 million won at each face value, and each of the said checks was delivered to the Defendants, and on the same day, KRW 60 million, including the above check withdrawn by the Plaintiff A to the account of Defendant C, and KRW 60 million, including the above check withdrawn by Plaintiff B to the account of Defendant D, was deposited respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants requested the plaintiffs to lend KRW 50 million each to the non-party company in order to guarantee the return of the fees for the performance of the formation of the organization, etc., and the plaintiffs lent KRW 50 million each at the request of the defendants to the non-party company. Thus, the defendant C is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million each of the loans to the plaintiff Eul, and the defendant D is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million each of the loans to the plaintiff Eul and the damages for delay.

As to this, the Defendants demanded the payment of the subsidies presented by the non-party company in the course of proposing the withdrawal from employment to the Defendants, but demanded the payment of the fees for the establishment of organization, and accordingly, they resist. The non-party company, through the Plaintiffs, paid the Defendants the fees for the establishment of organization and set up a security in such money. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that each KRW 50 million received from the Plaintiffs is not a loan.

B. Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that money is received between the parties to the judgment, the reason that the Plaintiff received it is a loan for consumption.