2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim added by this court is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On June 19, 2006, the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant KRW 10,000,000 on December 18, 2006, KRW 10,000 on December 18, 200, KRW 10,000 on June 14, 2007, KRW 10,000 on June 14, 2007, KRW 10,000 on June 30, 2008, KRW 10,000 on April 28, 200, and KRW 72,000,000 on September 12, 200 on September 28, 200, and KRW 72,000 on a total of KRW 72,00,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff loans totaling KRW 72 million to the defendant. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the above loans amounting to KRW 72 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.

2) The defendant's assertion

On April 4, 2003, the Defendant sold to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1 the land of KRW 500,000,000 among the forest land of KRW 443 square meters ( Address 1 omitted) and 500,000,000,000. At the time, the Defendant delegated all the rights concerning the conclusion of the above sales contract and the receipt of the price to Nonparty 2 and the Plaintiff, who operated ○ Real Estate in Mine-si ( Address 3 omitted). Therefore, the above KRW 72,00,00,000,000, which was paid by the Plaintiff from the buyer, was merely a delivery of part of the purchase price to the Plaintiff, the seller, and not a loan.

B. Determination

When the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no dispute between the parties as to the fact that money was available, the party bears the burden of proof as to the loan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179, Sept. 15, 2015).

Since the defendant is dissatisfied with the cause of receiving the above money, the plaintiff must prove that the cause of receiving the money was based on a loan for consumption, and it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent KRW 72,00,000 to the defendant only by the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary cause of claim is without merit.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

If it is not recognized that a loan was made to the Defendant for KRW 72,00,000, which the Plaintiff delivered to the Defendant, the Defendant received the above money without any legal ground, and thus, sought a return of unjust enrichment of KRW 72,00,000 to the Defendant.

B. Determination

Although the fact that the Defendant received money is not recognized as the Plaintiff’s assertion on the cause thereof, it cannot be deemed that the money that the Defendant received is unjust without any legal ground, and the Plaintiff is liable to prove the fact that the money that the Defendant received in accordance with the general principle of the burden of proof constitutes unjust enrichment.

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant received 72,000,000 won from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment without any legal ground, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's main and conjunctive claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance as to the main claims is just, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff's conjunctive claims added in this court are dismissed.

Justices Kim Yong-man (Presiding Justice)