대여금
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. The Plaintiffs, under the joint and several guarantee of Defendant C, leased KRW 4 million to Defendant C, including KRW 30 million on December 31, 2016, and KRW 10 million on January 4, 2017, as construction cost, on the date on which the due date arrives within 15 days from the date on which permission for the completion of a building was obtained or on March 31, 2017. The Plaintiffs leased to the Defendants KRW 5 million on April 30, 2017 or on the date on which the Defendants reached the due date under the construction cost. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants paid KRW 31 million out of the Plaintiff’s loans and delayed damages after April 1, 2017, both the Defendants and the Defendants jointly and severally paid the Plaintiff KRW 4 million to the Plaintiff and the Defendants to the Plaintiff on April 5, 2017.
The testimony of Gap 8 and 10 and Eul 2 and Eul 4 are insufficient to accept the authenticity of Gap 8 and 10 only, and the authenticity of the testimony of Eul 8 and 10 cannot be admitted as evidence because there is no other evidence to prove the authenticity of the petition. Eul's testimony is difficult to believe the truth of lending the plaintiffs' assertion. The remaining evidence submitted by the plaintiffs are insufficient to recognize the fact of lending the plaintiffs' assertion. Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the plaintiffs' claim for this part
2. The plaintiffs sought a return of unjust enrichment with the same amount as that of the above paragraph 1 by asserting that they obtained benefits from the plaintiffs' contribution, even though they did not borrow money. However, even if they are assumed that they had contributed money for construction work, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone cannot be readily concluded that the defendants just obtained unjust enrichment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this portion of the plaintiffs' claim, therefore, there is no reason to believe that this part of the plaintiffs' claim is without merit.
3. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all satisfied.