1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the co-existence of E, F, Defendant B, and D, G, and H’s words, and Defendant C and B are married.

B. On June 7, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred the total of KRW 10 million to Defendant C’s bank account, KRW 670,000 to Defendant C and B’s bank account, KRW 670,000,000 to Defendant B’s bank account, and KRW 13.67 million to Defendant B’s bank account on June 20, 2005.

C. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million to Defendant D’s bank account, KRW 30 million on May 23, 2005, KRW 300,000 on June 3, 2005, KRW 17 million on June 18, 2005, KRW 100,000 on June 20, 2005, KRW 100,000 on July 19, 2005, KRW 500,00 on December 7, 2005, KRW 1 million on December 25, 2005, KRW 60,000 on December 24, 200, KRW 6.5 million on January 27, 2006, KRW 6.5 million on June 4, 2005, KRW 5 million on June 27, 2006, KRW 6.5 million on June 27, 2006, respectively.

[Recognition of Facts] No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that the sum of KRW 1,367,00,00 transferred to Defendant B, C, and I was leased under the pretext of the store deposit and the cost of purchasing mobile phones, and the cost of purchasing mobile phones, and that the sum of KRW 40,100,000,000,000 transferred to Defendant D was lent under the pretext of the operation cost of the church operated at the time as a member of the church by Defendant D as a member of the church, and that the Defendants should pay damages for delay in addition to each money to the Plaintiff.

As to this, the Defendants stated that each amount claimed by the Plaintiff is donated to the Plaintiff or received as a sales price for Defendant D’s land, etc., and therefore, they cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that there was a receipt of money between the parties to the relevant legal principles, when the other party contests the other party's assertion that the lending was made, the party who asserts the lending bears the burden of

Supreme Court Decision 198Da1488 delivered on December 12, 1972