2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From October 21, 2013 to August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff paid a sum of KRW 74,900,000 to the Defendant as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “instant money”).

5. Amount paid on October 21, 2013. 10. 20, 100,000 on June 17, 2014; 20,000; 13,00 on June 21, 2013; 20,00, 30. 0,00 on March 14, 20, 200; 30. 4. 70, 200 on June 23, 2014; 10,000 on June 14, 2013; 10. 4. 70,00 on June 23, 2014; 10,000 on June 3, 2014; 19,00 on June 3, 200, 2004;

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. The Plaintiff, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, lent the instant money to the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the instant money and its delay damages to the Plaintiff.

B. Judgment 1) Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties to the relevant legal doctrine exchange money, the plaintiff claims the cause of the receipt of money as a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). 2) The plaintiff bears the responsibility to prove that it is a loan for consumption if the defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). In other words, the circumstance that the plaintiff is acknowledged as a whole by the purport of the pleading as a whole. 1) The plaintiff appears to have maintained an internal relationship with the defendant at the time of the payment of the instant money, 2) there is no document that directly recognizes that its nature such as the certificate of borrowing, etc. is a loan for consumption, and 3)