All of the ancillary claims filed by the plaintiffs in this Court.

A. The Plaintiffs are only F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

(2) The Defendant borrowed 30 million won on September 18, 2015, 15, 15 million won on April 21, 2016, and 45 million won on a temporary basis from the following day to the date of the borrowing. The Defendant agreed to make payment on a temporary basis on the following day.

3) On December 28, 2016, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from Plaintiff B and KRW 55 million from Plaintiff C on the basis of educational expenses and housing purchase cost, etc., and agreed to pay them in lump sum as of the following day from the date of borrowing. (b) The Defendant’s husband E filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim of restitution, etc. of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff under the Suwon District Court 2018Gadan553799, and the said lawsuit was transferred to Suwon District Court 2019Gahap2917 on December 6, 2019.

2. If the relationship between the plaintiff A and E is not recognized in the above settlement of accounts, the defendant is a case where he received 200 million won property benefits without any legal ground, and such unjust enrichment must be returned to the plaintiffs.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Determination 1 on the claim for a loan is based on various legal causes, such as a loan for consumption, a donation, and a repayment, where the remittance is made through a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement among the parties on a loan for consumption solely based on the fact that such transfer was made (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the parties had been able to borrow money, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made should bear the burden of proof against the Plaintiff who asserted that the lending was made.