2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff, who worked in the same workplace as the Defendants, lent KRW 73,000,000 to the Defendants a total of KRW 73,000,000 necessary for restaurant business operated by the Defendants after retirement. Of them, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 41,00,000, excluding KRW 32,000,000 paid by the Defendants, and damages for delay.

In this regard, the Defendants asserted that the amount of money deposited by the Plaintiff is the investment amount, and KRW 32,000,000 paid to the Plaintiff is the amount of money partially returned for the Do prize.

B. Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to whether the gold savings deposited by the Plaintiff to the Defendants was a loan, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan was lent is a loan, and when the Defendant contests the cause of the loan, the Defendant bears the burden of proving that the loan was lent to the Plaintiff.

(2) The Defendants paid KRW 61,00,000 to Defendant B account in total from September 1, 201 to December 26, 2012, and deposited KRW 12,00,000 to July 26, 2012, including the following: (a) the Defendants paid KRW 12,00,000 to Defendant C account in total; (b) the Defendants paid KRW 12,00,000 to the Plaintiff from September 1, 201 to July 28, 2013 to July 26, 2012; and (c) the Defendants paid KRW 30,00,00 to the Plaintiff from around 1, 200 to December 28, 2013 to KRW 30,00; and (d) the Defendants paid to the Plaintiff as evidence and evidence from around 30,300,000 to around 30,3037,201.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.