According to the statement of evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff, on November 16, 2015, may recognize the fact that, if the Plaintiff and the Defendant lent 40 million won to the Defendant on November 20, 2015, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate and a memorandum of payment (Evidence No. 1) that “if the Plaintiff lent 40 million won to the Defendant, the Defendant would have paid 10 million won on November 20, 2015, 10 million won on November 30, 2015, and 20 million won on December 31, 2015,” and that the Defendant remitted 40 million won to the Defendant on November 17, 2015.

In regard to the plaintiff's claim for return of loans in which the plaintiff's claim for judgment is asserted and judgment, the defendant has asserted that he/she paid KRW 10 million on November 24, 2015.

As to this, while recognizing the fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 10 million, the Plaintiff re-claimed to the effect that the Plaintiff, who lent the money to the Defendant on September 11, 2015, and that the Defendant, who was in arrears with the public charges repaid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff in the Jeju City C and D, did not pay for the public charges repaid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant denies that the amount of eight million won is not the loan, but the amount of the loan that the defendant introduced to the plaintiff and received.

Judgment

The issue is whether there is a claim for reimbursement of public charges repaid instead of a loan claim claimed by the plaintiff.

First of all, it is recognized that the Plaintiff first becomes aware of the Defendant in the process of purchasing CD E-mail in Jeju around September 2015, 2015.

However, on September 11, 2015, it is difficult to view that there was a trust relationship as much as to lending eight million won to the defendant, who did not reach the maturity of the plaintiff (40 million won, compared to the fact that a loan certificate was prepared for about 40 million won). Of the defendant's deposit transaction statement (Evidence No. 2) as of September 11, 2015, the defendant's deposit transaction statement (Evidence No. 2), the amount of KRW 6 million as of September 11, 2015 and KRW 2 million is stated as a "price settlement". The statement is difficult to view that eight million won remitted by the plaintiff is a loan, in light of the fact that the plaintiff inputs it.

Next, the plaintiff paid 2 million won on behalf of the plaintiff.