1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The network E (hereinafter “the network”) actually operated the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

B. On May 13, 2016, the Deceased died, and the Defendant (Appointed Party) B and the Appointor D jointly inherited the deceased’s wife C, son, and D.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he/she lent KRW 11.5 million to the Deceased on October 2, 2014, KRW 10 million on December 1, 2014, KRW 10 million on December 1, 2014, and KRW 14 million on January 26, 2015, respectively.

Therefore, the defendant (appointed party) and the designated parties, who are the inheritor of the deceased, should repay the above loans to the plaintiff according to their respective inheritance shares.

B. 1) We examine whether the Plaintiff lent money to the Deceased. 2) Reviewing the record of the evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff’s transfer of money to the Deceased amounting to KRW 11.5 million on October 2, 2014, KRW 10 million on December 1, 2014, and KRW 14 million on January 26, 2015, respectively.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 11 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and ① appears to have been remitted in relation to the F operated by the deceased, not directly to the deceased even if the Plaintiff transferred the details of the transferred money to the deceased (i.e.,, the details of the transferred money to the deceased cannot be found and only the details of the transferred money to the F operated by the deceased or remitted money to the corporation related to the above F). ② The plaintiff and F made a number of monetary transactions for a long time. The plaintiff and F appears to have been paid more than the amount the plaintiff claimed to have lent to the plaintiff, the plaintiff argued that he received KRW 3 million per month in the course of performing his duties as the defendant's business, but it was submitted by the plaintiff.