1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim

A. On June 2009, Plaintiff A, at the time of the Defendant’s representative director, claimed that the Defendant loaned KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant on June 19, 2009, upon the Defendant’s request that the deposit be needed for concluding a service contract with the mutual aid company E (hereinafter “E”), and that on June 19, 2009, the Defendant lent the above loan and its delay damages.

B. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers), it is recognized that D had served as the representative of the defendant from July 2005 to March 30, 2015, and that Plaintiff A transferred KRW 50,000,000 to the Nong Bank (F) account in the name of the defendant's representative director on June 19, 2009, when Plaintiff A was in office as the defendant's representative director.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant by only the facts acknowledged earlier, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, Plaintiff A’s assertion is without merit.

1) On September 11, 2018, D was convicted of a criminal offense, such as “Around 2010, when entering into a transaction contract between the Defendant and E as the representative director of the Defendant, and deposited KRW 50,000,000 in E in a transaction transaction. Around May 28, 2015, upon termination of the contract, E deposited the said deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000 from E in the agricultural bank account under the name of the Defendant and embezzled it by arbitrarily taking out and consuming the said money while the said money was deposited in the agricultural bank account under the name of the Defendant.” (Korean District Court Decision 2017Da166, and D appealed appealed and appealed the said judgment, but the judgment of conviction on the criminal facts was maintained as is.

D. However, the argument that “Plaintiff A continues to lend KRW 50,000,000 to D individuals, not the Defendant.”