1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

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

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties concerned; (b) evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5-1, 2, and 6-2 of the evidence No. 5-2; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness No. 1 trial D.

The plaintiffs are parents of D, and the defendant is the former husband of D.

B. The Defendant substantially operated the business entity called E by lending the name of D.

C. On November 26, 2004, Plaintiff A remitted KRW 20,000,00 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account of D, and D transferred KRW 30,000,000 to the E’s account used by the Defendant.

Plaintiff

B transferred KRW 20,000,000 to the above account of D on January 18, 2005, and D transferred KRW 45,000,000 to the above account of E on February 11, 2005.

E. On July 9, 2008, the Defendant drafted a document to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would create a right to collateral security with a maximum debt amount of KRW 50,000,000, under the title of the certificate of loan.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and their determination plaintiffs' remittance of each of the above KRW 20,000,000 to D to the defendant who actually operates E as its operating fund. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant has a duty to return KRW 20,000,000 to each of the plaintiffs.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the plaintiffs remitted each of the above money to the accounts in the name of D, not the accounts of E, and the plaintiffs asserted that the accounts in the name of D were actually used for the operation of E. However, according to the statements in the evidence No. 7-1 through No. 3, since D was used for the personal purpose of D, it is difficult to view that the deposited money was immediately remitted to the defendant. The amount and the time of remittance of the above money remitted to D is considerably different from the amount and time of remittance of the money remitted to D, and the plaintiffs received the funds from D in advance to D as the Defendant's borrowed money.