1. As to the Plaintiff B’s KRW 1,57,625, Plaintiff C, D, and E respectively, and each of the said money on June 28, 2019.

1. The facts of basic facts are that Plaintiff B’s spouse, Plaintiff C, D, and E are children, and Party A died on September 3, 2019 while the instant lawsuit is pending, and Party A wired KRW 65 million to the account of G bank, the Defendant’s spouse, on May 11, 2016, to the account of G bank. There is no dispute between the parties.

2. Judgment on the primary cause of the claim

A. The plaintiffs asserts that A lent the above KRW 65 million to the defendant as the main cause of the claim.

On the other hand, the defendant argued that the above 65 million won was remitted as follows.

On April 29, 2016, the Defendant lent KRW 30 million to A and received interest KRW 5 million.

Upon receipt of a request from A to sell the H’s land at the time of Jeju War, the Defendant promised to bring the remainder of KRW 210,000,000,000 except for KRW 210,000,000,000, and sold the said real property to KRW 240,000,000,000 pursuant to the above agreement, thereby receiving the remainder of KRW 30,00,000,000.

B. The sum of the principal and interest on the loan of KRW 35 million and the revenue of KRW 30 million from sales mediation is the sum of the principal and interest on the loan of KRW 65 million, which the Defendant received from A on May 11, 2016.

B. In a case where a person transfers money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, and repayment, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement between the parties to the loan for consumption solely on the sole basis of the fact that such remittance was made (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such an agreement was made is attributable to the Plaintiffs asserting that the remittance was made based on the loan for consumption.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). In this case, the witness I’s testimony alone is recognized as having lent money by concluding a loan for consumption with the Defendant.