2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) between July 29, 2014 and November 27, 2014, the Plaintiff wired money to the Defendant’s account; or (b) lent KRW 23,870,607 to the Defendant by means of paying the Defendant’s mobile phone charges instead of the Defendant’s mobile phone charges; (c) the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 23,870,607 and the damages for delay.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that they had a good appraisal of the relationship or relationship with each other. As such, the Plaintiff’s remittance of money to the Defendant or payment of mobile phone fees to the Defendant is not a loan, but a transfer of money to the Plaintiff without compensation to the Plaintiff for the continuous teaching system and relationship with the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant did not have a duty to pay the said money to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination:

A. Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that there is the number of money between the parties to the relevant legal principles, the plaintiff asserts that the cause of receipt is a loan for consumption, and if the defendant asserts that the money was received due to a loan for consumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the money was received due to

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972). In addition, whether the act of payment of money unilaterally continued to the same other party constitutes a gift should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the relationship between the parties, the total amount of money received, the period and amount of payment, the circumstances surrounding the receipt of money, the attitude and circumstances of the parties before and after the payment of money, etc.

B. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), it is recognized that the plaintiff remitted total amount of KRW 23,172,867 to the defendant's account over 12 times between July 29, 2014 and November 27, 2014, and that the defendant paid a total of KRW 697,740 to the defendant's mobile phone charges over two occasions.

However, the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 alone is the money equivalent to the money remitted and the mobile phone fee that the plaintiff paid to the defendant instead of the aforementioned money.