The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff has the claim against D for wages and retirement allowance claim amounting to KRW 20,349,592, and damages claim amounting to KRW 50,000,000 based on tort, as well as damages claim amounting to KRW 70,349,592.

B. D, while operating a wholesale business of leather and leather products at the Government City E, received the price of the goods using the Defendants’ account from around 2017 to May 24, 2019, and withdrawn and used the money from the said account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendants received the price of the goods to be received D in the name of the Defendants, and thus, it should be deemed that the pertinent cash was donated from D. The fact that D in excess of the obligation donated the Defendants to the Defendants constitutes a fraudulent act. As such, the gift contract between the Defendants and D should be revoked. The Defendants jointly pay the Plaintiff the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim, KRW 97,036,010, and delay damages.

B. As seen earlier, as seen in the judgment, the Defendants’ account in the name of the Defendants is deemed to have been used by D, not the Defendants, for its own account (the Plaintiff also has the right to allow D to use its own account), and the remaining amount of the account around the time when D is bound by D, which was the Defendants again used was a small amount of 513,300 won (Defendant C’s new bank account) and even if Defendant B, while living together with D, used the money in the above account as the daily expense, it cannot be deemed as a gift. In light of the above, the materials submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to acknowledge that D donated the money in the Plaintiff’s assertion to the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants of this case are without merit.