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

A. When the Plaintiff borrowed money, the Plaintiff believed the Defendant’s statement that he would make a prompt repayment at the statutory rate, and lent a total of KRW 105,300,000 to the Defendant on seven occasions.

Even if the donation was made, it was not made in writing, so the contract of donation was rescinded.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 105,300,000 and damages for delay.

B. It is a donation made under the name of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis to operate the “C” while the Plaintiff, who was in a relationship with the Defendant, seeks to resolve the Defendant’s economic difficulties.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence evidence evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 1,00,00 on April 3, 2014; KRW 10,000,000 on April 9, 2014; KRW 2,000,000 on April 28, 2014; KRW 6,30,000 on May 15, 2014; KRW 10,000 on May 19, 2014; KRW 75,00,000,000 on May 26, 2014; and KRW 105,300,00 on May 26, 2014; and KRW 1,005,00 on May 26, 2014.

B. Even if there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment on the claim for return of the loan, if one party asserts that the receipt of the loan is a loan for consumption and the other party asserts that the receipt of the loan is a loan for consumption, the other party has the burden of proving that it was received based on the loan for consumption.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972). The following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings are: (a) the Plaintiff had been within a considerable period of time due to internal relations with the Defendant at the time of remitting the said money to the Defendant; (b) the Plaintiff appears to have maintained internal relations with the Defendant at least from the time of remitting the said money to March 2015; (c) the Plaintiff appears to have had a certain degree of re-power at the time of remitting the said money to the Defendant; (d) the Defendant acquired and operated the restaurant of the trade name “C” with the said money received from the Plaintiff, and (e) the said money between the Defendant and the Defendant.