1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Summary and key issues of the instant case

A. On October 29, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred KRW 17.1 million to the Defendant’s account; (b) KRW 1,922,00,000 in total to the Defendants’ account from October 13, 2016 to December 26, 2016; and (c) KRW 2.3 million in total to the Defendants’ account on January 24, 2017 and January 26, 2017, respectively.

The Plaintiff asserts that, from October 29, 2016 to January 26, 2017, the Plaintiff loaned the Defendants a total of KRW 47,172,760, including the above money from October 29, 2016 to January 26, 2017, and the Defendants consumed it regardless of the company’s operation, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the contract for a loan for consumption was terminated by delivery of a copy of the instant complaint

As to this, the Defendants recognized that they received remittance of KRW 17.1 million and KRW 19.22 million from the company, but they did not lend it to the company, but did not receive the remainder. Therefore, they asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion is unjustifiable.

B. The key issue of the instant case is whether the money that the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendants or the company account was leased to the Defendants.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant lent money between the parties to the judgment on the cause of the claim, even though there is no dispute as to the fact that the said money was given and received, has the burden of proof as to the fact of the lending.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018, etc.). In full view of the overall purport of each entry and pleading in the evidence No. 1 (including the serial number), the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 3,632,00 to the Defendants’ account may be recognized.

However, on November 6, 2016, the Plaintiff participated in the incorporation of the above company as the representative of promoters, and then resigned from office as a director or representative director of the company on November 11, 2016, the Plaintiff was appointed as an auditor of the company on November 11, 2016, and 1,600 shares out of total shares issued by the company.