1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs' claim was based on the necessity of the defendant to pay money individually, and the defendant lent a total of KRW 191,113,797 from November 13, 2013 to April 15, 2014.

Plaintiff

B lent an equivalent amount to the Defendant by paying 5,00,000 capital on behalf of the Defendant who acquired 50% shares of the Plaintiff Company at the time of the incorporation of the Plaintiff Company. On January 24, 2014, in order to maintain the Defendant’s shares at the time of the Plaintiff Company’s capital increase, B paid 145,000,000 capital increase on behalf of the Defendant and lent an equivalent amount to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff Company KRW 191,113,797 with the repayment of the loan, KRW 150,000,000 to Plaintiff B, and delay damages for each of the above amounts.

Judgment

Plaintiff

Even if there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment on the company's loan claim and the fact that the loan was received, the plaintiff's assertion that the loan was lent has the burden of proof as to the loan.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, and Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018, etc.) According to each of the following: (a) Doctrine, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 8, and Eul evidence 9-1 through 3, the fact that the Plaintiff Company remitted total of 162,812,718 won to the Defendant or its husband from November 13, 2013 to April 7, 2014, is recognized.

However, there is no dispute between the two parties, or the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 22 and the entire arguments, namely, ① the plaintiff B entered into an agreement with the defendant, D, E, etc. to jointly proceed with the development and sale of the land after being awarded a successful bid on August 2013; ② the plaintiff company was established by the plaintiff B, etc. on October 25, 2013; and ③ the plaintiff company and the defendant entered the defendant as its internal director; and ③ the plaintiff company and the defendant have borrowed loans.