1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. On September 4, 2012, the basic fact-finding network F (hereinafter “the deceased”) remitted KRW 80 million to the account of the Defendant (the third wife of the deceased) who was sworn on September 4, 2012.

H transferred KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s account on October 2, 2012 upon the deceased’s request.

On October 15, 2012, the Deceased borrowed KRW 30 million from I and repaid it to H. On October 22, 2012, the Deceased paid KRW 100,000 as interest.

On October 19, 2012, Defendant and G opened a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the name of “J”, and used KRW 110 million received from the Deceased as the opening cost, such as the lease deposit, etc. of the instant restaurant.

The Deceased died on March 28, 2013, and the Plaintiffs and G jointly inherited the deceased’s property.

(Plaintiff A3/11 shares, the rest of the plaintiffs and G 2/11 shares). The defendant filed a divorce suit against G on January 8, 2015 with the Daejeon Family Court under the Hongsung Branch 2015ddan22, and is currently pending in the lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6, Eul 1, Eul 2, 5 through 7 (including each number if there is a serial number), witness I, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the plaintiffs alleged to be the deceased lending KRW 110 million to the defendant who was satisfy by G, the deceased's assertion, the defendant is obligated to repay the loans to the plaintiffs, who are co-inheritors of the deceased, according to their inheritance shares.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Deceased donated KRW 110 million to the Defendant, who was sembling with G that is a child, G.

3. Determination

A. Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the amount is received, the plaintiff asserts that the cause of receiving the amount is a loan for consumption, and if the defendant asserts that the cause of receiving it is the cause of the loan for consumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that it was received

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972, see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 197).