1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiffs alleged in the plaintiffs' assertion are liable to pay each of the above money to the plaintiffs since they were accused that they would not pay the amount of money to the defendant in cash or transferred to the defendant's account by transferring the money stated in the plaintiffs' claim to the defendant in a short term.

2. Even if there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that money was received, the plaintiffs' assertion that the lending was made, if the defendant asserts that the lending was made, there is the burden of proof against the plaintiffs who have asserted

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014). In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the written evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Defendant received money from the Plaintiffs in cash or received money from the Defendant’s account, even though it is recognized that the said evidence alone received money from the Defendant by deceiving the Plaintiffs.

It is insufficient to view that the plaintiffs borrowed money from the plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 6 and Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiffs remitted money using the defendant's account with the knowledge of the fact that they were paid as investment money to the J company, which is a multi-level business located in the United States from the defendant or the plaintiff, and that they were paid as investment money to the defendant. The plaintiffs subscribed as investors of the J company operated by K, the defendant remitted money from the plaintiffs to K in US dollars, the plaintiff A or K stated in the police investigation that the plaintiffs used the defendant's account as investment money, and the defendant stated that the police investigation was merely the plaintiffs used the defendant's account as investment money. In light of this, the defendant was found to have received a decision that there was no suspicion on July 10, 2018 as to the case for which the plaintiff filed a fraudulent complaint by the defendant, and in light of this,