The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the deceased E (hereinafter “the Deceased”) received aviation cancer treatment at G hospitals located in the Cheongbuk-gun F of the Cheongbuk-do in around 2017.

B. The Deceased died on November 6, 2019, and the Defendants, a child, inherited the deceased’s property.

On June 2, 2020, the Defendants were subject to a limited approval judgment on the inheritance of the deceased’s property (Tguk Kimcheon-do, 2020, 10053). [Grounds for recognition] The Defendants did not dispute, Eul’s entry in the evidence No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff lent KRW 40,000,000 to the Deceased four times from June 19, 2017 to July 12, 2018; (b) so, the Defendants, who are inheritance of the deceased, are liable to pay the borrowed amount and the delayed damages to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 40,000,000 from the deceased’s account to the deceased’s account is not disputed between the parties, or is recognized by adding the overall purport of the pleadings to the respective entries of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

However, the following circumstances are revealed by adding up the witness I's testimony and the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 3, that is, the deceased's speech I, upon requesting a virtual currency investment, paid money to the deceased through his/her own upon requesting the plaintiff's virtual currency investment, and he/she purchased virtual currency upon receiving such request.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff testified, on the day when he sent money to the deceased’s account, or on the following day, he remitted money from the deceased’s account to the I’s account, and around the time when I received the said money, he remitted money to the I’s virtual currency exchange. This appears to be a virtual currency purchase price, it is insufficient to conclude that the Plaintiff’s remittance of money to the deceased’s account is a loan for the said money, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is rejected.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is without merit.