A. The Plaintiff is a producer and distributor of adult products, and the Defendant is an Internet media content producer.

B. On March 21, 2014, the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant around 2013 and entered into an investment contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant investment contract”) with the following terms and conditions (hereinafter “instant investment contract”).

(A) The Plaintiff, B, and C are the Defendant).

On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 50 million to the Defendant, and thereafter, remitted KRW 20 million on July 14, 2014, the Plaintiff additionally remitted KRW 46 million on several occasions, such as remitting KRW 20 million to the Defendant.

On November 4, 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 46 million from the Plaintiff and issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of loan to the effect that the Defendant would repay by November 20, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff remitted to the defendant was the amount of KRW 96 million to the defendant, and the defendant did not pay it at all. Thus, the plaintiff is seeking payment.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the money remitted by the Plaintiff is not only the investment money under the instant investment contract but also the loan, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Even though there is no dispute as to the fact that the parties to the five million won portion are able to receive money, the plaintiff's assertion that the cause of the receipt is a monetary loan for consumption, and the defendant's assertion that it was received due to the loan for consumption is the burden of proving that it was received due to the loan for consumption.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, etc.). We examine the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million to the Defendant on March 24, 2014 is a loan. Rather, in full view of the aforementioned facts and evidence, the Plaintiff’s remittance of KRW 50 million can be recognized as an investment under the instant investment contract.