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

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff heard from the Defendants that “A company operation funds of Defendant C need to be lent KRW 30 million, and if Defendant C fails to pay the said funds, Defendant B, the mother of Defendant C, would make payment on behalf of the Defendant C, and deposited the said money in Defendant B’s bank account with KRW 30 million, thereby lending the said money to the Defendants. The Defendants jointly and severally have the obligation to return the loan amount of KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff and pay damages for delay. (2) If the Defendants are not deemed to have the obligation to return the loan amount of KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff without any legal cause, the Defendants jointly and severally have the obligation to return the unjust enrichment and pay damages for delay equivalent to KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendants’ assertion did not state that they would lend money to the Plaintiff.

However, as the Plaintiff’s Dong Dong C incurred a loss to the company that operated the Defendant C by lending its name, D intended to compensate the Defendant C for the loss, and received 30 million won from the Defendant C’s mother’s account to the Plaintiff, who was the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, with the intent to compensate for the loss, as such remittance was made. Defendant B only lent its account in the course of receiving the said money.

2. Determination:

A. The document evidence Nos. 1 and 2 regarding the claim for return of a loan can only be acknowledged that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 30 million into Defendant B’s bank account on October 20, 2014, and the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above KRW 30 million to the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of loan against the Defendants cannot be accepted.

B. In light of the Defendants’ assertion as to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, the Defendants received transfer of KRW 30 million to Defendant B’s account solely on the basis of the statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 2.