1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Upon the Defendant’s request for monetary loan on June 17, 2016, the Plaintiffs allegedly leased the Plaintiff A Incorporated Partnership (hereinafter “Plaintiff Incorporated”)’s bank account as designated by the Defendant, respectively, with KRW 30 million, and KRW 6 million, to the Plaintiff Incorporated Company B. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff Incorporated KRW 30 million, KRW 6 million, and damages for delay.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the statements in the Evidence Nos. 2 and 5, the Plaintiffs, around June 17, 2016, remitted each of the KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff’s corporation, and KRW 6 million to the Plaintiff’s bank account in D Co., Ltd., and the fact that the Defendant is the representative director of D.

However, the following circumstances revealed in Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2 comprehensively based on the purport of the entire pleadings. In other words, the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have lent each of the above money to the representative director of Eul Co., Ltd. on the ground that the plaintiffs remitted each of the above money to the bank account as above, and the plaintiffs did not clearly assert the agreement rate or the due date for payment, etc., and the plaintiffs do not appear to have a pro rata relationship with the plaintiffs to the extent that the plaintiffs would lend 36 million won in total without asking the defendant for the purpose of using the funds separately without separately obtaining the loan certificate. Rather, the above 36 million won is deemed to have been deposited as part of the business premium in concluding the entrusted operation contract with Eul Co., Ltd., the above facts alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiffs lent each of the above money to the defendant, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. Therefore, the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit.