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

A. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant’s account on December 18, 2017 does not conflict between the parties, or that the Plaintiff’s statement in the evidence No. 1 may be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings.

B. The gist of both parties’ assertion (1) The Plaintiff asserts that the money remitted to the Defendant’s account is a loan to the Defendant and sought the payment of the money stated in the purport of the claim.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the money transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant is not a loan to the Defendant, but a joint investment with the Defendant to C (hereinafter “instant vessel”), a ship owner, and the obligor is not the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a transfer is made by transferring money to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made on the basis of various legal causes, such as loans for consumption, investment, donation, and repayment. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an intention of the party to a loan for consumption solely on the basis of the fact that such transfer was made. Even if there was no dispute as to the fact that money was given and received between the parties, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made should bear the burden of proof against the Plaintiff who asserted the lending.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018, etc.). B.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the following facts or circumstances, etc. revealed by the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant’s account on December 18, 2017, by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, are insufficient to recognize the above facts solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the circumstance alleged by the Plaintiff, etc.