2. On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that he lent the above money to the defendant, and the defendant asserts that he lent or invested to C through himself.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff loaned money to the Defendant, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff lent money to C through the Defendant.

① The Plaintiff did not know at all about C’s personal information, contact information, work, ability to repay, etc., as well as the relationship with the Defendant.

In light of the circumstances where the size of the amount transferred by the Plaintiff is not small, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff had expressed an intent to lend or invest money to C without introducing or receiving documents, such as a loan certificate, from the Defendant.

Rather, it is natural to view that the defendant has lent money to the defendant.

② The Plaintiff actually remitted money from his account to the Defendant’s account.

(1) It is doubtful whether the Plaintiff would have received money through the Defendant’s account, rather than the C’s account, if it is recognized that most of the money that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff was returned to C at that time. However, if the Plaintiff was willing to lend or invest money to C, it is doubtful whether the Defendant would have received money through the Defendant’s account, rather than the C’s account.

③ In the process of receiving said money, the Defendant transferred the said money to the Plaintiff under the name of interest, etc. in addition to the principal, the amount of KRW 3 million on August 30, 2010, and KRW 3.5 million on October 27, 2010.

④ Some of the money sent by the Plaintiff was not delivered to C as it is.

On September 24, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant.