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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The Defendant is a person employed by the Plaintiff and worked as the site manager at the B remodeling construction site (hereinafter “instant site”) executed by the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant the sum of KRW 2,30,000,000 on March 13, 2014, KRW 800,000 on March 28, 2014, and KRW 2,30,000 on April 8, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant money”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Defendant, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, requested the Plaintiff to grant a loan (provisional payment) for the prompt and small amount execution of the instant site, and the Plaintiff promised to settle the loan with the Defendant along with relevant documentary evidence and remitted the instant money to the Defendant at the end of every month.

However, the defendant did not properly explain the use of expenses despite the plaintiff's request for settlement of accounts.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 2,300,000 and delay damages.

B. Determination 1) The plaintiff asserted that he remitted the money of this case to the defendant for the execution of small amount funds in the field of this case executed by the plaintiff. Thus, even according to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have lent the money of this case to the defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff lent the money of this case to the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the money of this case is a loan is without merit. 2) In addition, even if the plaintiff's assertion is directed against the defendant to the purport that he seeks to return the money not used as expenses in the field of this case among the money of this case, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the money of this case was not used in the field of this case among