1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance is that “The Plaintiff’s money paid to Defendant C is not a loan, but a de facto investment loan,” and “Defendant B is unable to use text messages,” as stated in Section 3 through Section 17 of the first instance judgment, the reason why the court of first instance is to explain this case is that “A money is operated in Busan with Defendant C’s job to borrow money to the Plaintiff.”

There is a security deposit for lease on a deposit basis. If the money is not paid, the money will be paid even at the entertainment establishment.

“The purport of “A” is that the Plaintiff had the ability to repay money from the Plaintiff; ② Defendant B asked the Plaintiff to transfer money to the Plaintiff; ② not only knew of his account number but also did not know about how to repay money to the lender as soon as possible; ③ Defendant C also sent text messages suggesting that the borrower is the lender; ③ as Defendant C is a person with bad credit standing, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was reliance on the credit of Defendant C; ④ the Defendants submitted materials proving the fact that the said money is unrelated to the above financial transaction, and did not submit any evidence; ④ The Defendants failed to submit any evidence; and the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following additional determination, are the same as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendants asserts that the return of the said money constitutes illegal consideration, inasmuch as they were aware that the Plaintiff was to use the said money for the purpose of lending money, and thus, they cannot seek the return thereof.

On the other hand, the plaintiff added it to the trial.