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

The parties, etc. concerned are the same children of D, the plaintiff B, and the living women of D, and the defendant married with D on January 6, 1986, but divorced by trial on December 4, 1996.

D and the defendant's relation D transferred a certain amount of money to the defendant under the name of the defendant's child support and living expenses after judicial divorce with the defendant. Since 2010, the defendant purchased a house under the name of the defendant and newly built and sold it.

The details of remittance from the account in the name of the Plaintiffs to the account in the name of the Defendant, while from October 30, 2005 to April 3, 2015, KRW 572,856,849 in total was transferred from the account in the name of the Defendant to the account in the name of the Defendant. From April 27, 2011 to May 19, 2015, the sum of KRW 508,435,687 in total was transferred from the account in the name of the Plaintiff B to the account in the name of the Defendant, as shown in attached Table 2, from October 30 to April 3, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 5-1 through 3, Eul evidence 6-1 through 4, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiffs asserted that they lent money claimed as construction cost or child support, etc. to the defendant, and sought payment, the defendant asserts that since the money transferred under the plaintiffs' name was equivalent to Eul's living cost or child support, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiffs' claims.

The fact that the money remitted by the Plaintiffs is a loan or a transfer of money from the account in the name of the Plaintiffs to the account in the name of the Defendant is as seen earlier.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 4-1 through 3, Gap evidence 5-1 through 3, Gap evidence 6-1 through 4, Gap evidence 7-1 through 7, Eul evidence 6, Eul 7, and 10, i.e., the plaintiffs, while remitting large amount of money to the defendant for several years, did not prepare the lending documents such as a loan certificate, etc.