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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff, who worked as a branch of ACE life, paid the above money to the defendant as job-seeking allowance while scarping the defendant, could not respond to the plaintiff's claim.

2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff remitted 10 million won to the defendant on July 25, 2013.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) there was no loan certificate, etc. on the above money between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; (b) there was no agreement and payment of interest arising from ordinary loans; and (c) there is no objective evidence suggesting that the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the above money within two years before the instant lawsuit was filed; and (iv) there was no evidence suggesting that the Plaintiff had urged the Defendant to pay the above money; and (v) at the time of paying the above money, there was a time when the Plaintiff, who was the head of the branch office of ACE Lifelong, was working as an insurance solicitor at another competition company, and the Plaintiff had an impact on the Plaintiff’s income in accordance with the degree of the Defendant’s insurance solicitation, and there was no need to support the Defendant’s insurance solicitation activity. In full view of the possibility that the Plaintiff could not have paid the above money under the pretext of employment subsidies in the course of Switzerland formation, as alleged by the Defendant, it is not sufficient to conclude that the above money was a pure loan.

Therefore, it is true.