The defendant.

A. On January 22, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 23,000,00 to the Defendant’s bank account under the Defendant’s name by means of remitting money to the Defendant’s bank account. ② Separately, the Plaintiff and the Defendant repaid KRW 5,847,384 on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, including F, G, and H, used under the name of the Defendant’s mother-friendly E, but only paid KRW 7,838,66 million to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining loans of KRW 17,968,816 (i.e., KRW 23,00,000,00) (i.e., KRW 2,807,476 (i., KRW 7,838,660) and the total amount of KRW 5,847,384 (i.e., KRW 23,816,20) and the interest or delayed damages.

B. In addition, the Defendant received the above KRW 23,00,000 from the Plaintiff as investment in the business run by the Defendant, and did not receive the above money, even if not, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff on the payment of interest on the above money between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and ② there was no use of credit card issued in the name of mother E, so the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

2. Determination:

A. 1) Where a loan is transferred to another person’s deposit account by means of a transfer of money, etc., such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as consumption lending, donation, and change of money. As such, the fact that such transfer was made alone that there was a mutual agreement between the parties to the loan for consumption and consumption.

It cannot be easily determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that the transfer was in conformity with such intent is being made for consumption lending and lending (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). The following facts are as follows: (a) each entry of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, 7, and 13 (including any number that has several numbers) and the Plaintiff of the appellate court at the trial.