1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 14, 201, 201, Plaintiff A transferred KRW 10,000,000 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant (Account Number D, hereinafter “the Agricultural Cooperative Account”), and KRW 30,000,000,000 on February 15, 2012, and KRW 10,000,00 on October 14, 2013, respectively.

B. On March 27, 2012, Plaintiff B transferred KRW 15,000,000, and KRW 2,200,000 on April 22, 2013 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account of this case, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As seen in the above basic facts, Plaintiff A transferred KRW 50,000,000 to the agricultural cooperative account in this case, and lent KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant. Plaintiff B wired KRW 17,20,000 to the agricultural cooperative account in this case, and lent KRW 17,200,000 to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 50,00,000 to the Plaintiff and KRW 17,20,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) Plaintiff A operated F agency in E and Cheongju from around 2011 to the Defendant’s Cheongju. At the time, Plaintiff A prepared investment funds and decided to take charge of actual business, E was in a bad credit condition, and E received the above investment funds from Plaintiff A through the instant agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant. The said 67,200,000 won remitted by the Plaintiffs is all the investment funds for F agency.

3 In other words, 67,200,000 won which the plaintiffs remitted to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the defendant was not loans to the defendant.

3. Determination

A. Since a loan for consumption is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return the same kind, quality, and quantity, it is natural that the parties have to agree on the above point.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 201). Moreover, money in another person’s deposit account is money.