1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. Subject to the selective claims added by this Court.

A. The Defendants shall be jointly and severally.

1. Basic facts

A. As the wife of the deceased network D on February 16, 2017, the Plaintiff is a person who independently inherited the claims filed against the Defendants in this case following an agreement on the division of inherited property with other co-inheritors, who are children of the network D.

B. On July 1, 2016, before death, D remitted KRW 50,000,00 to the head of the Tong under Defendant C’s name.

(hereinafter “amount of remittance of this case”). (c)

The amount of the instant remittance was fully transferred from July 20, 2016 to January 20, 2017 to the deposit account in Defendant B’s name as follows:

In other words, the remittance amount of this case was transferred as KRW 5,00,000 on July 20, 2016, KRW 5,000,00 on August 7, 2016, KRW 5,000,000 on September 20, 2016, KRW 17,000 on October 17, 2016, KRW 5,000 on October 21, 2016, KRW 00 on KRW 6,00,00 on November 18, 200, KRW 5,000 on December 9, 2016, KRW 00 on KRW 15,00 on December 15, 200, KRW 00 on May 20, 200 on the deposit account; and KRW 10,000 on May 16, 2016; and

Meanwhile, from March 28, 2006, Defendant B served as a director of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) for the purpose of preparing and arranging for coming-of-age, marriage, funeral and funeral service from March 28, 2006. From June 16, 2015, Defendant C is serving as the representative director of the said company. Defendant C is serving as the inside director of the said company from March 31, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 5 (including each number), and the result of this court's submission of financial transaction order to E unions, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the following purport. The Plaintiff’s assertion is selected as a selective claim.

1) The network for claiming a loan became aware of Defendant C through Defendant B’s original elementary school, and the network D loaned the instant remittance amount to the Defendants upon receiving a request from the Defendants for lending the insufficient Dowon Construction Fund, and thus, sought the return of the loan against the Defendants. 2) Reinstatement following the cancellation of onerous donation.