Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is C Co., Ltd. (the trade name before the change is made is “D.”

The representative director of the C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) is working as the representative director, and the defendant was employed as a member of C on January 25, 2015 and retired on October 26, 2018.

B. On November 3, 2017, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 31,600,000 to the Defendant’s Han Bank Account, and KRW 10,000,000 on May 1, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 9, and the purport of the whole theory

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff lent KRW 31,60,000 on November 13, 2017, and KRW 10,000 on May 1, 2018, to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 41,600,000 (=the above KRW 31,600,000) and the delayed damages.

B. (1) Determination 1) In the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the payment can be made based on various legal causes, such as consumption lending, donation, and change of money. Therefore, the mere fact that such transfer was made that there was a mutual agreement between the parties to the lending and borrowing of consumption.

It cannot be easily determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that there was an agreement with such intention is a person who asserts that the remittance was made for consumption lending and lending (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). (A) The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 31,60,000 to the Defendant on Nov. 3, 2017, according to the evidence No. 1, according to the following: (i) the fact that the remittance was made on Nov. 3, 2017.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, the evidence mentioned above, Eul evidence Nos. 8 to 10, Eul evidence Nos. 12 to 14, and Eul evidence Nos. 12 to 14, as a whole, can be known or inferred by the purport of the whole theory, the evidence No. 5 is stated.