Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On April 29, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s account.

B. On April 29, 2013, C completed the registration of the establishment of a lower-class right with respect to D Apartment E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with respect to the debtor C, a person holding the right to collateral security, with the maximum amount of the Plaintiff and the person holding the right to collateral security at KRW 50 million, on the ground that the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security was made on August 31, 2015.

9.2. The cancellation was made by C on September 2, 2015, and C again completed the registration of the establishment of the right to create the right to create the right to create the right to create the right to create the right to create the right to create the said apartment as the debtor C, the mortgagee, and the maximum claim amount of KRW 50 million.

B. The Defendant remitted money to the Plaintiff as indicated in the following table.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion was that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant at an interest rate of 24% per annum, but the Defendant did not fully repay only KRW 15 million and pay the remainder of KRW 35 million.

The defendant asserts that C, not the defendant, borrows money from the plaintiff, and the defendant merely introduces the plaintiff and allow C to use the defendant's passbook in the course of lending money to C, and there is no obligation to repay the above money to the plaintiff.

B. (1) Determination 1) In the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account, etc., such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as consumption lending, donation, and change of money. Therefore, the mere fact that such transfer had been made that there was a mutual agreement between the parties with respect to consumption lending and lending.

It cannot be readily concluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that there was an agreement with such intention is the Plaintiff asserting that the remittance was made for consumption lending and lending (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014).