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

On March 13, 2017, the defendant lent the loan by transferring the amount of KRW 40 million at the defendant's request.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above money to the plaintiff.

Judgment

According to Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the plaintiff transferred a total of KRW 40 million to the defendant on March 13, 2017 is recognized.

However, when the defendant contests the plaintiff's assertion that he lent money to the parties even if there is no dispute as to the fact that he received money between the parties, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof as to the fact of lending.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014; etc.). However, since the Defendant is dissatisfied with the grounds for receiving the said money, the Plaintiff should prove that the grounds for receiving the said money were based on a loan for consumption. However, even when examining all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the foregoing time limit, it is difficult to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge such fact.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, [A] transfer of KRW 40 million to the Defendant’s head of the Tong at the time the Plaintiff transfers KRW 40 million to the Defendant, “C” (the Plaintiff’s spouse and the Defendant’s spouse, and ② D, the Defendant’s spouse, from August 25, 2017 to the Defendant’s spouse

8. It is recognized that a transfer of KRW 45 million has been made up to eight times between 31 and 31. This fact is consistent with the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 40 million from Bana, who is not the Plaintiff, and that the said amount was fully repaid thereafter.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.