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

A. Plaintiff A lent KRW 60,50,000 to the future tourism Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Smi Tourism”), several times, and Plaintiff B lent KRW 30,000,000 to the future tourism on April 1, 2014.

B. On June 5, 2016, the future tourism entered into a contract with the Defendant for the transfer and acquisition of vehicles (hereinafter “instant transfer and acquisition contract”) with the content that all business rights, such as the license for chartered bus transportation business and the ownership of ten chartered bus 10 million won, owned by the future tourism (hereinafter “instant transfer and acquisition contract”).

C. On June 5, 2015, the Defendant filed a report on the transfer or acquisition of passenger transport business to the Dong-si Mayor on the same month in accordance with the instant transfer or acquisition contract.

9. Receipt of notification of repair;

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and determination Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant is obliged to pay the borrowed money that the future tourism bears to the Plaintiffs, as it succeeded to all the status of the future tourism transport business entity by concluding the instant transfer/acquisition agreement.

However, in light of the fact that the acquisition amount of KRW 320 million according to the transfer contract of this case is the value of 10 vehicles that the defendant accepted, and that according to the transfer contract of this case, the parties agreed to assume the future tourism as to all the monetary matters, such as taxes and public charges incurred until the transfer report is accepted, etc., it is difficult to deem that the defendant assumed the obligation of the loan owed to the plaintiffs by the future tourism solely on the fact that he succeeded to the status as a transport business operator and received business rights from the future tourism, and there is no other evidence

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.