Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

The summary is that the Plaintiff, on April 27, 2013, remitted KRW 1100,00 to the Defendant’s account and paid KRW 300,000 to the Defendant in cash, and lends the Defendant a total of KRW 1,40,000,00 to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said loan amount of KRW 1.4 million

Judgment

A. In a case where there is no dispute as to erroneous payment, such as giving and receiving or remitting money between the parties, monetary transactions may be conducted based on various legal causes. As such, the fact that money transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is loans under a monetary consumption lending contract should be attested by the plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972, etc.). (b) The plaintiff remitted KRW 1.1 million to the defendant's account under the name of the defendant on April 27, 2013, although there is no dispute between the parties, the plaintiff did not dispute between the parties, but at the request of the defendant on May 4, 2020 and June 2, 2020, the plaintiff alleged that the remaining 1.1 million won was remitted to the defendant after collecting the claim for the return of the deposit from the defendant C at his request, and then the plaintiff transferred the remaining 1.0 million won after the collection of the deposit from the defendant's money collection to the defendant, and there was no evidence that the remaining 1.

In addition, there is no doubt about the assertion and there is no doubt about the remittance of the said money, and there is no specific assertion about the terms and conditions of the lending, such as interest rate and due date, etc., and there is no evidence that the Plaintiff remitted the money to the Defendant except for the instant KRW 100,000,000,000, and for more than six years from the date of the payment to the date of the instant lawsuit.