1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revoked part are asserted.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore cites it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant argued by the plaintiffs from January 2012 that if he/she lends money to the plaintiffs from around January 2012, he/she requested to lend money in addition to the principal, he/she should pay interest rate separately.

Therefore, the plaintiffs did not prepare a separate loan certificate and paid part of the money to the defendant as stated in the attached list. The defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan to the plaintiffs.

The defendant alleged that he invested KRW 9,800,000 to E from November 2011, the defendant made an investment in the form of paying KRW 10,800,000 to the defendant as principal and interest payment by setting the number of days to the merchants of the Seodaemun market from the next day to 27 times every day.

The defendant made an investment to the plaintiffs, as above, that the defendant received interest at least 10% of the investment amount from 270,000,000, and the plaintiffs expressed their intent to participate in the above investment.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs and the defendant together invested in E, and the details stated in the attached list are also limited to the details of the plaintiffs' investments in E and the details of the return of their investments. In that process, the defendant delivered the plaintiffs' investments to E through the defendant's account for the convenience of the plaintiffs and the simplification of their investments, and the defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiffs.

Judgment

If a transfer is made by transferring money to another person's deposit account, etc., the remittance may be made for various reasons. Therefore, the fact that the money that the plaintiffs remitted to the defendant is a loan under a monetary loan contract shall be proved by the plaintiffs who have asserted it.

The plaintiffs are the defendant.