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

A. On January 6, 2012, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant’s account, and KRW 100,000,000 on February 17, 2012, respectively.

B. On March 12, 2012, the Defendant remitted KRW 40,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s account, KRW 9,900,000 on January 26, 2015, and KRW 6,000 on February 28, 2015, respectively.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 1-1

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant on January 6, 2012, and KRW 100,000,000 on February 17, 2012, and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40,000 on March 12, 2012, and KRW 9,900,000 on January 26, 2015, and KRW 6,00,000 on February 28, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages from the date following the date on which the Plaintiff claimed the return.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no dispute between the parties as to the fact that there was a receipt of money but the loan was lent is proved by the burden of proof on the Plaintiff who asserted that the loan was lent.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). B.

As found in the above basic facts, the plaintiff can be found to have paid KRW 40,00,00 to the defendant on January 6, 2012, and KRW 100,00,00 on February 17, 2012. However, evidence Nos. 2, evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 5, 6, 6, 9, 10, and 11-1 through 7, evidence Nos. 11-2, 13, 14, and the whole purport of the arguments and arguments, in light of the following facts and circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent the above money to the defendant on the sole basis of such recognition, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

1) The Plaintiff asserted that he lent KRW 140,000 to the Defendant, but did not assert any assertion as to the terms and conditions of the loan. 2) The Plaintiff was established in 2009 and cosmetics.