1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was returned KRW 18 million from among the Defendants’ transfer to the Defendants, KRW 20 million on March 6, 2013, KRW 5 million on May 24, 2013, KRW 15 million on June 3, 2013, KRW 15 million on June 25, 2013, KRW 60 million on June 1, 2013, and KRW 18 million on July 1, 2013.

The difference is KRW 42 million (i.e., KRW 60 million - KRW 18 million) by deceiving the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff had lent to the Defendants or could prevent the re-envenation to be made against the Defendants (main claim) and that the Plaintiff could not have any re-envened against the Defendants.

(Preliminary Claim). (b)

Judgment

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff remitted to defendant C the total sum of KRW 60 million on March 6, 2013, KRW 20 million, KRW 5 million on May 24, 2013, KRW 15 million on June 3, 2013, KRW 15 million on June 25, 2013, KRW 60 million on June 25, 2013, and KRW 10 million on July 1, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the money of this case").

However, even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that money was received, if the defendant contests against the plaintiff's assertion that the lending was made, the party bears the burden of proving that the lending was made.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, etc.). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following facts and circumstances revealed by the purport of Gap’s entries and arguments in Articles 1, 4, 5, 7, 10 through 13, 17, 18, 19, 21 through 24, 29, and 1 through 4, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff lent the instant money to the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, and it is also difficult to deem that the Plaintiff delivered the instant money by deceiving the Defendants.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive arguments.

(1) There are a number of financial transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendants before and after the transfer of the instant money.