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

A. On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 60 million to the Defendant, including KRW 10 million, KRW 45 million on July 23, 2017, and KRW 5 million on July 29, 2014. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff money as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. The Defendant asserted that, upon the Plaintiff’s request, he merely invested the above money in C and D, and did not borrow it. Thus, the Defendant did not accept the Plaintiff’s request.

2. Determination

A. Since the payment of money to another person can be made based on various causes such as a loan for consumption, an investment, and a donation, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a consensus among the parties to the loan for consumption solely on the fact that the money was provided, and even if there was no dispute as to the fact that the money was given and received between the parties, when the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made, the burden of proof as to

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179 Decided September 15, 2015, etc.). B.

In the instant case, according to the statement Nos. 1- 3 in each of the instant case, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the Defendant prepared and executed a loan certificate of KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff on July 10, 2014; and (b) the Plaintiff transferred the total amount of KRW 60 million to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant around that time.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1-11, the defendant introduced the plaintiff with C and D, which he invested in online marketing-related company, as the defendant divided information about the plaintiff and profit-making business with an insurance relation. ② The plaintiff also demanded the defendant to prepare a loan certificate when he requested the plaintiff to invest the amount of KRW 10 million. The defendant prepared a loan certificate (Evidence No. 1) on July 10, 2014, and the plaintiff transferred the loan certificate of KRW 10 million to the plaintiff on two occasions on July 11, 2014, which is the following day (Evidence No. 3), and the defendant transferred the total amount of KRW 10 million to the plaintiff (Evidence No. 1) on two occasions on July 5, 2014.