Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the representative of D Co., Ltd. engaged in the event and performance agency business, and the Defendants operated Co., Ltd. E with international conferences, seminars, etc.

The Plaintiff, at the request of the Defendants, remitted KRW 100,00,000 to the bank account of Defendant B (hereinafter “the instant money”), and prepared a loan certificate with the obligor, Defendant C as joint and several sureties, claiming that Defendant B is the party to whom the loan was granted, and Defendant C is the joint and several sureties who is the joint and several sureties.

B. In a case where a person transfers money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as loans for consumption, donations, and repayment, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement among the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the sole basis of the fact that such remittance was made (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such an agreement was jointly made is the Plaintiff asserting that the remittance was made based on the loan for consumption.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014). The evidence No. 1 (the certificate of rent) states that the creditor is Dro, the debtor is a stock company E, and the joint guarantor is recorded as C, and the creditor is a stock company D. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants to lend the instant money, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.