The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

The parties’ assertion F (hereinafter “the deceased”) lent the money to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant money transaction”) at the request of the Defendant, who is a partner of pro-gu G, by means of remitting the amount of KRW 49.5 million on September 4, 2009, KRW 50 million on September 25, 2009, KRW 19.5 million on December 19, 2009, KRW 19.55 million on December 19, 2009.

At the time, the defendant agreed to pay interest equivalent to the amount of the above remittance within one year.

However, the deceased died on March 20, 2020, and the inheritor succeeded to the above loan claims against the defendant of the deceased in proportion to the statutory inheritance ratio. The defendant is obligated to pay each money as stated in the claim and damages for delay to the plaintiffs.

Defendant merely borrowed money from G, including the amount of remittance of this case, and did not borrow money directly from the Deceased.

Therefore, the defendant does not have a duty to repay the remittance amount of this case to the plaintiffs.

Judgment

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and witness G testimony, from September 4, 2009 and Oct. 19, 2009, the sum of KRW 149,500,000 was remitted from the Defendant’s account under the name of each deceased’s spouse to the Defendant’s H account. On September 25, 2009, the amount of KRW 50 million was remitted from the A’s account to the I’s account under the name of G’s spouse from September 25, 2009, and was remitted from the I’s account under the H’s name on the same day, and KRW 50 million was remitted from the I’s account to the H’s account. G is recognized to the effect that “the person who lends the instant remittance to the Defendant is the Deceased.”

However, in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1-11, 2, and 3 (if there are serial numbers, including each serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the facts and the whole arguments in this court, there was no document to recognize monetary lending relationship between the deceased and the defendant, such as a loan certificate regarding the monetary transaction of this case.