H deposited KRW 100 million in the Defendant’s account on October 10, 2013 (hereinafter “instant money”).

B. On May 19, 2014, the Defendant returned KRW 70 million to H as a check.

C. On July 7, 2015, H died with the Plaintiffs who were their children as inheritors.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The main point of the plaintiffs' assertion H (hereinafter "the deceased") lent the money of this case to the defendant. Since the defendant paid only KRW 70 million among them to the deceased, the defendant is obligated to pay 5 million each of the loans unpaid to the plaintiffs who are the inheritor of the deceased (=30 million won ( KRW 10 million-70 million) x 1/6) and delay damages.

B. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion did not lend the instant money to the Defendant, and even if the deceased loaned the money, the Defendant did not pay the money to the Plaintiffs, since the deceased exempted the Defendant from the obligation to return the remainder of KRW 30 million at the time of repayment of KRW 70 million from the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. The plaintiff is liable to prove that the money was received by the parties due to a loan for consumption.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a loan, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a loan, etc., as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. Regarding the instant case, the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: (a) the aforementioned facts, and the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 6 (including each number, if any).