1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff asserts that as the cause of the instant claim against Defendant C, the Plaintiff lent 6,550,000 won (=2,54 million won) over twice to Defendant C.

B. In a case where the Plaintiff’s assertion that he borrowed money even if there is no dispute as to the fact of receiving money between the parties, the Defendant is liable to prove that the money was “loan” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018). In the instant case, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff lent the money to Defendant C, not Defendant D, and there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff lent the said money to Defendant C, the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendant C, which the Plaintiff was internal, cannot be accepted without further review.

2. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B

가. 4,000만원의 대여원리금 반환청구 원고는 피고 B에 대한 이 사건 청구원인으로, 원고가 피고 B에게 3회에 걸쳐 합계 4,000만원{= 2008. 11. 19.에 총 1,000만원(☞ 당일 피고 B의 통장으로 송금된 745만원과 당일 피고 C의 통장으로 송금된 255만원의 합산액) 2008. 11. 28.에 3,000만원}을 빌려주었다고 주장하지만, 갑 1, 2의 각 일부 기재만으로는 이 점을 인정하기에 부족하고, 그밖에 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없을 뿐만 아니라, 오히려 을 7의 일부 기재와 증인 E의 일부 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면, 위 4,000만원은 원고와 피고 B 사이의 다른 법률관계에 기초하여 수수된 사정을 인정할 수 있으므로, 원고의 위 청구 부분은 받아들일 수 없다.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff loaned 27,90,000 won in total over several occasions to Defendant B as shown in the attached Table - was not disputed between the parties, but there was an interest agreement on each of the above loans between the Plaintiff and Defendant B.