A. From December 8, 2016 to May 4, 2017, Plaintiff A deposited KRW 55,00,000 in the Defendant’s account five times.

(2) On December 8, 2016, KRW 5,00,000, KRW 20,000 on April 22, 2017, KRW 10,000 on April 23, 2017, KRW 10,000 on April 23, 201, KRW 27.9,40,000 on May 4, 2017, and KRW 10,60,000 on May 4, 2017.

Around May 2017, the Defendant: (a) regularly borrowed KRW 55,00,000 of the principal and deposited KRW 1,000,000 per month to the Plaintiff’s account on the 28-29th of each month under the title of “the tea card”; and (b) transferred 30% of the equity interest payment date to the Plaintiff in Gwangju to the Plaintiff A; (c) at the time of repayment of the principal amount of KRW 6,00,000,000 for interest at the rate of KRW 10,000 for each repayment of the principal amount of KRW 6,00,000 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”); and (d) agreed to repay the said KRW 55,00,000 until the disposition of the restaurant in Gwangju operated by the Defendant until the disposition of the restaurant in Gwangju.

C. On June 5, 2019, the Defendant transferred KRW 10,000,00 to the Plaintiff out of the money received after closing a restaurant in Gwangju D. D.

Plaintiff

B also deposited KRW 7,00,000 on November 10, 2018 to the defendant, and the above amount was refunded until the end of April 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 2-2, the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff A 45,00,000 won (=55,000,000 won - 10,000,000 won repaid by the defendant on June 5, 2019), 7,00,000 won for each of the above amounts to the plaintiff B and each of the above amounts to the plaintiff B from June 20, 2020, the next day of service of the copy of each of the complaint of this case, which is the next day of the judgment of this case sought by the plaintiffs from Jun. 20, 2020 to Nov. 27, 200, which is the day of the judgment of this case, 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the

In this regard, the defendant is not a loan but a loan, and even if it is not a domestic investment, Gwangju D according to the loan certificate of this case.