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

A. From around July 2008, the Defendant: (a) worked as an employee of the store in which the Plaintiff was operating; (b) requested to borrow money from around July 2009 to December 7, 2013 on the ground that it was difficult to obtain a loan from the credit business; and (c) lent KRW 20,661,703 in total from around July 2009 to December 7, 2013.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the above loan and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant got back from around 2008 to around 2013.

The defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff, and at the time the plaintiff was to use the passbook in the name of the defendant as the person with bad credit standing, and the money claimed by the plaintiff is merely that of the plaintiff's deposit in order to settle the plaintiff's living expenses, monthly taxes, mobile phone expenses, etc.

2. Determination

A. Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the parties to the relevant legal interest are entitled to receive money between them, the cause of the receipt by the plaintiff is a loan for consumption, and if the defendant contests it, the fact that it was received due to the loan for consumption is proved by the plaintiff.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). In addition, whether the act of paying money unilaterally continues to exist to the same other party should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the relationship between the parties, the period and amount of receiving money, the circumstances leading up to receiving money, the attitude and circumstances of the parties before and after paying money, etc.

B. According to the above legal principles, according to each of the health units and evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted approximately KRW 19.4 million to the Defendant over about 45 times from July 3, 2009 to December 7, 2013 (excluding the partial remittance fee) is recognized.

However, the evidence of the plaintiff's submission is insufficient to recognize that the above remitted money was paid to the defendant due to the reason of the loan, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.