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

A. Since the deceased E, the inheritee of the plaintiffs, lent KRW 30 million to the defendant, the defendant should return the money corresponding to the plaintiffs' share of inheritance among the above loans to the plaintiffs.

B. The defendant's assertion was received at the request of the network E to make an investment in the business run by F at the time, and delivered it to F and received investment returns from F to the network E. Thus, the money that the defendant received from the network E is not a loan.

2. Even if there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that money has been received, the reason that the plaintiff received money is the consumption lease, and the defendant is the burden of proving that it was received due to the consumption lease.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972). According to the written evidence No. 1-3 and No. 2-2 of the evidence No. 1-2 of the Plaintiff’s wife and the Plaintiff B, and the mother of the Plaintiff C (name G prior to the opening of the name) remitted to each Defendant the amount of KRW 10 million on February 9, 2007 and KRW 20 million on April 24, 2007; the Defendant received money from the deceased E on February 9, 2007 to August 2013.

However, the defendant's argument that the transfer of the same amount or more than the above amount to F because of the fact that the defendant received the above money from the network E is merely a broker for investment between the network E and F is not persuasive.

In addition, it is difficult to readily conclude that each of the above money was paid interest, as the Defendant received money from the network E and did not periodically transfer money to the network E, and did not periodically keep a certain amount.

If so, earlier.