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

2. Determination

A. As to the claim against Defendant B, a loan for consumption under the relevant legal doctrine is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money and other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return the same kind, quality, and quantity (Article 598 of the Civil Act). It is natural that there exists an agreement between the parties as to the above point (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270, Nov. 11, 2010). In addition, in a case where money is transferred to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as a loan for consumption, donation, and repayment, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that such transfer was made solely on the ground that there was an agreement among the parties to the loan for consumption (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012).

The fact of remitting total of KRW 22,200,000 per month from March 2009 to April 2015 is no dispute between the parties.

However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement on a loan for consumption between the Plaintiff and Defendant B to lend the above KRW 22,200,000, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 300,000 per month to Defendant B, who provided support to the Plaintiff’s father, with the intention of unfortunateing and mashing the Plaintiff’s father.