The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport and purport of the appeal [the purport of the appeal]

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B are in a simple form of punishment, and the Defendants are married couple.

B. On March 25, 2009, a total of KRW 12 million was remitted from the G bank account in the name of E to the G bank account in the name of Defendant B’s name.

【Unfounded Grounds for Recognition】 Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 23, Eul evidence Nos. 5, and the court’s order to provide financial transaction information to G Co., Ltd., the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion was requested to lend money from the defendant around 2009 and lent 30 million won to the defendants through three villages E. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a loan of 30 million won and delayed damages to the plaintiff.

B. As to whether the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the Defendants, the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 12 million from the G bank account under the name of the Defendant B to the G bank account under the name of the Defendant B on March 25, 2009 is as seen earlier, but there is no evidence supporting the fact that the said money was remitted as the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendants.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent the remainder of KRW 18 million to the Defendants. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit (the Plaintiff initially asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 17.1 million out of KRW 30 million to Defendant F’s father’s account in the name of H, which is the head of Defendant B, through the account in the name of Defendant F, which is the mother’s father’s father interest, to the account in the name of Defendant B, but it appears to have been withdrawn from the written preparation on July 13, 2020.

Even if the Plaintiff appears to maintain the above assertion, the fact that the sum of KRW 17.1 million was transferred from the I association account under H’s name to the account under the name of January 16, 2009 (the head of Defendant F’s father’s father’s interest) is not disputed between the parties, but the above fact that the above recognition alone does not constitute a dispute between the parties, and that KRW 17.1 million was a loan to the Plaintiff’s Defendants.