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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On March 26, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant’s account, and KRW 4,500,000 on September 16, 2013, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan”) b by adding the above money.

At the time, the Defendant was the representative of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).

C. On May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an order with the Seoul Central District Court to pay the instant company KRW 20,000,000, and the instant loan was performed as a lawsuit. On May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment with the purport that “the instant company shall pay the Plaintiff the above service cost, the instant loan, and the damages for delay.” The said judgment became final and conclusive.

(Reasons for Recognition) The fact that there is no dispute over the Seoul Central District Court 2015da5325624. [Grounds for Recognition], Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, the fact to this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent the loan of this case to the defendant, and the defendant must pay the loan of this case and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

3. As seen earlier, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the instant company to seek the payment of the instant loan and performed as a lawsuit and the judgment ordering the payment of the loan was pronounced. In light of such facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the instant loan to the Defendant solely on the ground that the Plaintiff paid the instant loan to the Defendant account, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.