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

The actual lending of the loan from the plaintiff's assertion is C which is the husband of the defendant, not the defendant, and only is the use of the defendant's account in the course of lending and repayment.

Judgment

According to Gap evidence No. 2, it is recognized that the sum of KRW 180,000,000 is KRW 180,000 on July 29, 2013, KRW 16,500,000 under the name of the defendant, KRW 48,550,000 on January 20, 2014, KRW 205,000 on November 20, 2014, and KRW 180,000,000 on December 10, 2015.

However, when the defendant contests the plaintiff's assertion that he lent money to the parties even if there is no dispute as to the fact that he received money between the parties, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof as to the fact of lending.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). However, as seen earlier, as the Defendant is disputing this, the Plaintiff’s ground for receiving the money ought to prove that it was based on a loan for consumption to the Defendant, and even if all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the aforementioned evidence, were examined, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent the money to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Rather, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 9 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and all pleadings, there is only a circumstance that the plaintiff seems to use the above money to the defendant's husband C while lending it to the defendant's husband.