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

The plaintiff asserts that the cause of transfer is a loan for consumption, and the defendant is liable to prove that it was remitted due to a loan for consumption if the cause is disputed.

On March 22, 2011, the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 40 million from the NongHyup account under its name to the new bank account under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant remittance”) is no dispute between the parties.

However, in the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, which can be known by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, that there was no document of disposition, such as a certificate of loan, among the plaintiff and the defendant related to the remittance of this case, there was no evidence to prove that there was a demand for payment by June 12, 2019, which was the date of the application for the payment order of this case after the transfer; the defendant asserts that he was paid part of the claim against Eul, which was omitted for the cause of the remittance of this case; the Jeonju District Court 2016Ga1754 (principal lawsuit), 2016Gahap4593 (Counterclaim) between the above D and the plaintiff's husband, which was the former District Court 2016Kahap4, 2016Gahap4593 (Counterclaim). However, on January 19, 2018, the judgment dismissing the above claim for loan on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge otherwise in light of the above legal principles.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loan is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.