2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The plaintiffs are the successors of the deceased as parents of the network D.

B. On October 22, 2015, the Deceased transferred KRW 90 million to the account under the name of the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and determination Plaintiffs asserted that, as the deceased lent KRW 90 million to the Defendant on October 22, 2015, the Defendant should pay KRW 45 million to the Plaintiffs, who are the inheritor of the deceased, according to the inheritance ratio.

In the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as a loan for consumption, a gift, and a repayment. Therefore, 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 transfer was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such an agreement was jointly made exists is against the Plaintiffs asserting that such transfer was made based on a loan for consumption.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). The deceased remitted KRW 90 million to the account under the name of the Defendant on October 22, 2015, as seen earlier. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the money transferred by the deceased to the Defendant account was a loan under a monetary loan agreement between the deceased and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.