1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 40,00,000 and 5% per annum from July 14, 2017 to October 23, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. Upon Defendant B’s request, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 40,000,000 to Defendant C’s account on March 12, 2012.

(hereinafter “instant money”). (b)

On March 15, 2012, the amount of this case was fully remitted to the F account, which is the lessor of the house (Yanyang-si, D apartment, E) in which the Defendants resided in the Defendant C’s account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 5-7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, around the Plaintiff, asserts that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for payment of the instant money and damages for delay, since the Defendants lent money to the Defendant C’s account on March 12, 2012 by means of remitting KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant C’s account.

Preliminaryly, the Plaintiff loaned 40,000,000 won to Defendant C’s account on March 12, 2012 by means of lending money, as it is necessary for Defendant B to raise the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease, and this is related to the daily home affairs of the Defendants’ couple. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the instant money and the damages for delay pursuant to Article 832 of the Civil Act

B. The Defendants’ instant money is not a loan from the Plaintiff, but is paid as construction cost in relation to the construction contract concluded on December 9, 201 by the Plaintiff and G Co., Ltd. (Representative Director B, hereinafter “G”).

3. Determination

A. Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the Plaintiff could receive money between the parties whether to lend the instant money, the cause that the Plaintiff received the money is a monetary loan for consumption, and the Defendant is the burden of proving that it was received due to the loan for consumption if it is contested (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972).