A. From May 2015, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion lent 3,7930,000 won to the Defendant from around 34 times as shown in the separate sheet, and received reimbursement agreements from the Defendant regarding the remaining 3,748,00 won after deducting 4,50,000 won paid as transportation expenses.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 3,748,00 won and delayed damages.

B. Determination 1) According to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 of Gap, the plaintiff acquired the money from the defendant by deceiving the plaintiff and receiving the money in the separate sheet.

The defendant asserted and filed a complaint against the defendant on the charge of fraud. Among them, the defendant's loan of 60,000 won in total from June 5, 2019 to June 8, 2019 is recognized only as the defendant borrowed 600,000 won from the plaintiff in the absence of intent and ability to repay from June 5, 2019 to June 8, 2019. Accordingly, the defendant's above criminal facts are sentenced to a fine of 50,000 won by the Gwangju District Court Decision 2020 High Court Decision 1583, and the above summary order becomes final and conclusive as it is. According to the above facts acknowledged, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the loan amount of 6

2) As alleged by the Plaintiff, as regards each money in the [Attachment 5-34] Nos. 5 to 34 as to whether the Plaintiff was the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserts that the cause of the receipt of money was consumed lending and lending, while on the other hand, if the Defendant asserts that it was for other purposes, the Plaintiff bears the responsibility to prove that the cause was the consumption lending and lending (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone sufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff paid each of the above money to the Defendant.

There is a lack of recognition and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the said money by the Defendant.

Although it is argued by the parties, it is not possible to recognize the agreement only with the evidence No. 5.