1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) from June 18, 2012 to February 25, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 6,444,00 to Defendant B by means of remitting money to Defendant B’s deposit account or paying in lieu of the rent to be paid by Defendant B.

Defendant B subrogated to the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 23 million, and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 21,819,000 from Defendant B.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan to the Plaintiff KRW 19,621,00.

On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 5 million to Defendant C Co., Ltd. by means of remitting the amount of KRW 5 million to the Defendant’s deposit account.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 5 million.

B. Although there was a fact that the Plaintiff asserted by the Defendants remitted money to the deposit account in the name of the Defendants, the Defendants did not borrow the said money.

2. 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 such kind, quality and quantity as such (Article 598 of the Civil Act). As such, there must be an agreement between the parties as to the above point.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 2010). Moreover, in cases of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, the said remittance may result in various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, and entrustment of custody or delivery, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement among the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the fact that such remittance was made. The Plaintiff asserts that the remittance was made on the ground of a loan for consumption. The burden of proving that there was such an agreement with the parties to a loan for consumption cannot be readily concluded.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012). B.

As to the claim against Defendant B, the Plaintiff was the deposit account in the name of Defendant B and the deposit account in the name of E.