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

The non-party E was the representative director of F, and the defendant B was the wife of E, and the defendant C was the appearance of G, and the defendant D was the person born between G and the former husband.

B. On May 15, 2012, Non-party F Co., Ltd. remitted KRW 170,000,000 to Defendant B, KRW 200,000 to Defendant C, and KRW 50,000,000 to Defendant D respectively to the bank account in the name of the Defendants.

C. E’s representative director E sent KRW 49,480,000 to Defendant D on May 16, 2012 following the day.

On July 9, 2012, E notified Defendant B and C of the purport that “The said Defendants shall return the money to Defendant B and C at their own discretion, as stated in the foregoing paragraph A.”

E. On December 6, 2012, Nonparty H merged F Co., Ltd. with one another.

F. H Co., Ltd. and E are against the Defendants

(a) and (b)

On April 3, 2013, under the premise that the money stated in the claim was lent, each of the loan claims was transferred to the Plaintiff. The notice of this was given to the Defendants and the notice of the assignment of claims reached the Defendants respectively.

2. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendants are regardless of the intention of E, the representative director of F, Co., Ltd.

Defendant D received the money set forth in the subsection, and Defendant D received the money from E.

Ha Co., Ltd. that combines F with the money stated in this paragraph lent the money to the Defendants, and H Co., Ltd. that held a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above remittance amount to the Defendants, and Eul held a loan claim against Defendant D. Thus, the Defendants asserted that H Co., Ltd. has the obligation to pay the above amount of transfer to the Plaintiff by acquiring the above claim for return of unjust enrichment, and the loan claim against

3. We examine the judgment above.