임대차보증금
1. The plaintiff B's claim that was changed in exchange in this court is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff A's appeal is dismissed.
3...
1. Determination as to the plaintiff B's claim
A. The plaintiff B asserts that on January 14, 2008, he lent KRW 100,000 to the defendant through the plaintiff A by means of remitting the amount of KRW 100,000 to the defendant.
B. According to each of the evidence Nos. 2, 2, 3-1, and 3, the fact that the plaintiff Eul remitted KRW 120,000 to the plaintiff on January 14, 2008, and the plaintiff Gap remitted KRW 100,000 to the defendant on the same day.
However, the defendant and the plaintiff Gap merely borrowed KRW 120,00,000 from the plaintiff Eul to the defendant in the course of establishing investment funds under the business agreement, and the plaintiff Eul did not lend KRW 100,00,000 to the defendant. The above money must be proved by the plaintiff Eul. The plaintiff Eul's loan to the defendant of the plaintiff Eul should be proved, and the whole purport of the arguments can be considered as follows: ① the plaintiff Eul's mother and the defendant received 120,00,000 won from 10,000 won from 20,000 won from 20,000 won from 20,000 won from 20,000 won from 20,000 won from 20,000 won from 20,000 won from 60,000 won from 60,000 won from 20,000 won from 60,000 won from 20,000 won from 206.6.