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

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 28, 2011, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to D, and D deposited KRW 20 million to E, the wife of Defendant B on the same day.

B. The Plaintiff deposited KRW 10 million on May 28, 201, and KRW 10 million on June 3, 2011, respectively, to Defendant C’s father’s wife.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim is introduced in D, and the amount of KRW 1,00,000 per annum (5% per annum and 60% per annum) to the Defendants was KRW 1,00,000 per annum (5% per annum and 60% per annum). The Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000 per annum between May 28, 201 and June 3, 2011 to KRW 1,000 per annum (5% per annum and 60% per annum) without setting the period of repayment.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40 million and damages for delay from June 3, 2011.

B. The Plaintiff’s above KRW 40 million paid to the Defendants was able to be identified by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5 as to whether the Plaintiff was a loan to the Defendants. In other words, the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not know of the Defendants at the time of remitting the above KRW 40 million. D was made at an investigative agency related to the instant case’s “I would like to include the investment money in its own name, and the Plaintiff knew that the transaction with the Defendants was an investment.” In light of the fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 163,00,000 from D on April 29, 201 and KRW 1,00,000 from May 27, 2011, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was a loan to the Defendants.

3. The plaintiff's objection to the conclusion.