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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On September 2, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were married couple, and the agreement was married on September 2, 2016.

B. On October 9, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant’s father’s bank account, and KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant’s bank account on June 11, 2015, respectively.

C. D transferred 4,00,000 won in total to the Plaintiff’s bank account on September 22, 2016 and January 17, 2017, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff requested the defendant as a new house construction fund of D and lent KRW 20,000,000 to the defendant. Since only KRW 4,000,000 out of the loan was paid by the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining loan of KRW 16,00,000 and delay damages.

Even if the defendant did not borrow the above money, the defendant agreed to pay the above money in installments at the time of divorce with the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the borrowed money as the debtor of the agreed amount or the joint and several sureties.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff remitted money to the Defendant and D is not a loan, but a donation made by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff to establish a house to D, and even if the said money was loaned, the lender of the said money is not a defendant.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no dispute between the parties as to the fact that there was a receipt of money but the loan was lent is proved by the burden of proof on the Plaintiff who asserted that the loan was lent.

(Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s receipt of KRW 20 million, by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2 and 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings, are as follows.