1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The facts based on which Defendant B received a 100 million won check from the Plaintiff’s account on April 16, 2008, which was deposited in the account of the said Defendant’s wife, and KRW 50 million deposited in the account of the said Defendant’s wife, and KRW 50 million deposited in each account of Defendant C, which is the said Defendant’s wife, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s account was transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to Defendant B’s account on July 31, 2008 is either a dispute between the parties, or that the fact that KRW 30 million was transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the Plaintiff’s account on July 31, 2008 is either a written evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 5-2

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment against the defendants

A. In the event that the Plaintiff did not bear any obligation against the Defendants, Defendant B received the said KRW 100 million check from Defendant B’s account, and received KRW 30 million from Defendant B’s account from Defendant B to Defendant B’s account, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff’s account cannot be deemed a legal ground.

Therefore, the Plaintiff primarily and primarily sought payment of KRW 130,000,000,000 as a refund for unjust enrichment to Defendant B, and then sought payment of KRW 30,000,000,000 from Defendant B’s account to the above Defendant’s account, and KRW 50,000,000,000 from Defendant C, respectively.

B. The fact that Defendant B received the above KRW 100 million from Defendant B, or that the above KRW 30 million was transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to Defendant B’s offense, and the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not have a claim or obligation relationship does not exist between the parties.

However, the following circumstances, i.e., Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers) and Eul's testimony of witness E of the court of first instance, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., ① has maintained a very closely-friendly relationship with H since before 2008, which is the plaintiff's actual operator, and not only the plaintiff from October 29, 2007 to July 21, 2008, and ② Defendant B has traded money over a number of times between the plaintiff and the plaintiff.