2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. Defendant medical corporation G (hereinafter “Defendant medical corporation”) is a non-profit medical corporation established on January 2, 2014, and Defendant F and the co-defendant E were the directors of Defendant Medical Foundation, and Defendant F retired on January 2, 2017.

B. There was a registered provision that limits the power of representation that Defendant F only can exercise the power of representation during the above period.

C. From January 21, 2016, the deceased A (hereinafter “the deceased”) was hospitalized in an I Hospital operated by the Defendant Medical Foundation and received medical treatment from the first instance trial co-defendant E around July 2016 and deposited KRW 100,000,000 with the account of the Nonghyup Bank in the name of the Defendant Medical Foundation from July 18, 2016 to July 30, 2016.

As the deceased died on July 27, 2017 during the first instance trial proceeding, the deceased took over the above lawsuit of the deceased as his heir, the Plaintiff B, his children, and D, who were the deceased’s spouse.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 19 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The court's judgment on the primary claim is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (2. judgment on the primary claim). Thus, the court's judgment on the primary claim is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The plaintiffs asserted that they borrowed money from the deceased in consultation with the co-defendant E in the first instance trial to improve the financial status of the Defendant Medical Foundation.

Although there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that Defendant F, in the name of the Defendant Medical Foundation, the Defendant F directly borrowed money from the Deceased in consultation with the Codefendant E, Defendant F was insufficient to recognize that Defendant F borrowed money from the Deceased on the sole basis of the above recognition. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, it is true.