All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

With respect to the plaintiffs' assertion I, the plaintiffs A has each loan claim of KRW 135,410,00 and KRW 32,420,000.

I repeatedly borrowed and repaid money from the Defendants respectively. I received the principal of the loan and interest exceeding the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act from the Defendants, Defendant C received the principal of the loan and the interest in excess of the highest interest rate under the said Act, and Defendant C obtained unjust enrichment of KRW 59,803, KRW 7,523,433, KRW 9,371, KRW 790, Defendant E, KRW 9,378, KRW 290, KRW 9,058, KRW 293, KRW 37,076, KRW 276, and KRW 33,065,897.

The Plaintiffs seek to return each of the above amounts to the Defendants in unjust enrichment by subrogation of I in order to preserve each of the above loans to I.

Judgment

We examine the existence of the preserved right claimed by the plaintiffs.

In cases of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as loans for consumption, donations, repayment, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the parties to a loan for consumption have jointly agreed to the intent of the loan for consumption solely on the fact that such remittance was made.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that money was received, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the party leased the money had the burden of proving that the Defendant lent the money.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). According to each description of the Evidence No. 2 (including the virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Evidence No. 2 (including the virtual number) of the Plaintiff and his/her spouse from December 12, 2018 to January 10, 2019, the sum of KRW 151,500,000 was remitted from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Plaintiff and his/her spouse to the I’s name; from November 14, 2017 to December 27, 2017, the fact that the sum of KRW 32,420,000 (hereinafter the above KRW 151,50,000 and each of the instant remittance amount) was remitted from the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name to the I’s name. However, Article 2 of the A.