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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff transferred the Plaintiff’s bank account (E) to Dong Jae and allowed the Plaintiff to use it for the number of days of credit business. From December 5, 2016 to January 19, 2017, the Plaintiff borrowed a total of KRW 40 million from Nonparty F and deposited the said account into the said account.

Therefore, the above KRW 40 million is the Plaintiff’s money.

On the other hand, on January 19, 2017, KRW 4 million was remitted from the above account under the Plaintiff’s name to the Gup account under the Defendant’s name, and this is the Defendant borrowed the Plaintiff’s money.

Therefore, the Defendant shall repay the above loan to the Plaintiff. If the above amount of KRW 4 million is not a loan, the Defendant shall receive the remittance of KRW 4 million without any legal cause and return it as unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 4 million won and delay damages for the loan or return of unjust enrichment.

B. The fact that 4 million won was remitted from the account held in the Plaintiff’s name to the account held in the Defendant’s name was not disputed between the parties, but the fact alone is insufficient to recognize that a monetary loan contract existed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

C. We examine the determination of the claim for return of unjust enrichment, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant acquired the above KRW 4 million without any legal ground.

Rather, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff’s account was used by C at the time when said KRW 4 million was transferred from the account under the Plaintiff’s name to the account under the Defendant’s name, and considering the overall purport of the pleadings in addition to the entries (including the serial number) in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, it is recognized that C remitted KRW 4 million to the account under the Defendant’s name for the repayment of borrowed money to the Defendant. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the said KRW 4 million was remitted to the Defendant without any legal cause.