2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From February 2, 2015 to August 9, 2015, the Plaintiff paid a sum of KRW 2,826,000 to the Defendant as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “instant money”).

5. Amount paid on February 2, 2015: 11,000 on May 14, 2015; 10,000 on May 14, 2015; 640,00 on May 14, 2015; 30,00 on March 15, 20 on May 14, 2015; 15, 100 on June 3, 2015; 15, 200 on June 3, 200 on June 3, 2015; 15, 10. 40 on May 15, 200 on March 1, 2015; 10, 200 on May 15, 2015; 10, 2004 on May 30, 2015;

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the money of this case and its delay damages to the plaintiff, since he lent the money of this case to the defendant, and the defendant asserts that the money of this case was used as the cost of transfer or life of the plaintiff and the defendant, and not the loan.

B. Determination 1) Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties to the relevant legal doctrine exchange money, while the plaintiff asserts the cause of receiving money as a loan for consumption, the plaintiff is responsible for proving that it is a loan for consumption if the defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). 2) The circumstance acknowledged by the purport of pleading as a whole in the statement No. 1, which is, that is, the circumstance that the plaintiff was in a living together with the defendant at the time when the money is paid, the plaintiff seems to have maintained a relationship with the defendant, and that there is no document that directly recognizes its nature as a loan, such as the certificate of borrowing, etc., with respect to the money of this case, the money of this case was paid 18 times over 6 months.