A. On July 6, 2015, the Plaintiff, a member of the C church, transferred KRW 27 million to the Defendant’s head of the Tong, who is the member of the C church.

B. On August 17, 2015, the Defendant purchased Kanche D (hereinafter “instant automobile”) from Manche D (hereinafter “instant automobile”). The instant automobile price was approved by the said KRW 27 million and 10,630,000 with her Samsung Card, and completed the instant automobile ownership transfer registration in the future.

C. On July 15, 2015, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay KRW 27 million up to July 19, 2016.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 8, Eul evidence 3 to 5

2. The plaintiff asserts that he lent KRW 27 million to the defendant, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiff donated the church vehicle to the defendant and donated KRW 27 million to the defendant as the vehicle price.

3. Determination

A. The interpretation of the relevant legal doctrine is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of indicating it, and in the event that there is a conflict of opinion on the interpretation of the legal act between the parties and thus the interpretation of the parties is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the legal act, the motive and background leading up to the juristic act, the purpose

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da1142 delivered on April 29, 1994, etc.). B.

According to the above basic facts, if the plaintiff intended to donate church vehicles to the head of the C church, the plaintiff transferred money to the defendant's personal account book, and the defendant obtained additional approval from the plaintiff by using his card, and then purchased the instant vehicle and completed the transfer of ownership in his own name instead of the C church. The plaintiff asserted.