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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff KRW 20 million and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or 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 the other party agrees to the above point.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 2010). Moreover, even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the parties provided and provided money, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the parties provided and provided the money is obliged to bear the burden of proving that the Defendant asserted that the lending was made.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018). B.

The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 20 million to the account in the name of the Defendant on March 6, 2015 is either a dispute between the parties or a dispute between the parties, and the evidence Nos. 2 (including the serial number) and Nos. 1 and 4 may be recognized.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 2, No. 2, No. 3, 5, 6, and 7, each of the evidence No. 2, No. 1, and evidence No. 2, No. 3, 5, 6, and 7, the witness C’s testimony as shown in the Plaintiff’s argument is hard to believe, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the above 20 million won

① With respect to KRW 20 million transferred to an account in the name of the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare the same disposal document as the loan certificate.

Even according to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff merely becomes aware of the defendant through the introduction of C, and there is no friendly relationship.