7. The fact that a sum of KRW 40 million, including KRW 10 million, was remitted to Defendant C’s financial account, and the fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 18 million from the Defendants is not a dispute between the parties.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants leased KRW 40 million to the Defendants, and thus, the Defendants jointly and severally asserted that they were liable to repay the remainder of KRW 22 million to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants received KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff as the investment amount. The Defendants also asserted that the amount of KRW 18 million was equivalent to the Plaintiff’s investment amount, and that the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff as the repayment amount for the loan claimed by the Plaintiff, and that they did not comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for the repayment of the loan.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 40 million to the Defendant’s account and the Defendants paid KRW 18 million to the Plaintiff is recognized by the Defendants.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendants remitted 18 million won to the Plaintiff as investments in the Plaintiff, but there is no clear evidence to acknowledge it, and that there is no disclosure about what amount of investment, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the above 18 million won was paid as repayment for the amount of 40 million won lent by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

(However, the changed statutory rate shall apply to the damages for delay).