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

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the defendant only received and delivered the money invested by the plaintiff in C without knowing the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) In order for money to have been paid as a result of a loan for consumption, the agreement between the parties to the loan for consumption should be reached at the time of payment of the money. If the other party contests the cause of the receipt and payment of the money, the party who asserts that it was received due to the loan for consumption shall bear the burden of proving that it was received due to the loan for consumption. 2) The fact that the Plaintiff remitted the money to the Defendant a total of KRW 42.6 million on May 31, 2016 and June 13, 2016 is no dispute between the parties.

However, the Plaintiff asserted that he lent KRW 42.6 million to the Defendant, and did not disclose the content of a loan for consumption, such as the due date and interest, and did not submit any other objective data to deem that there was a mutual agreement with the intent to lend the said money at the time of payment of the said money, such as a loan certificate, etc., and even based on the written brief dated March 14, 2019, it appears that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were not known to the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but did not prepare a loan certificate while lending KRW 42 million.

In light of the above, it is difficult to readily conclude that a monetary transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is a monetary loan for consumption only on the sole basis of the fact that the Plaintiff remitted money to the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.