1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

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

1. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff, who was in an internal-related relationship, exchanged and lent USD 5 million to the Defendant in Korean currency, which reaches the amount of KRW 5 million for the first time on August 2015. On the premise that the Plaintiff transferred the amount of KRW 15 million to the Defendant’s passbook on August 18, 2015 and lent the amount of KRW 20 million to the Defendant.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the defendant did not borrow the above money only after the defendant received the settlement of the transfer cost.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence 1 to 5 of the judgment on the claim for a loan of KRW 15 million, and in part of Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5 of the judgment, the plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 15 million from Samsung F&M on August 18, 2015, and immediately paid it to the defendant. Among the Do in which the relationship was in progress, the plaintiff received a loan of KRW 15 million from the new financial institution (the plaintiff seems to have paid interest up to now) from the new financial institution, it is difficult to obtain the defendant with the intention of settling the transfer cost. In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult for the plaintiff and the defendant to settle the transfer cost to the defendant. In view of the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant's Kakao Stockholm conversation, the plaintiff's transfer of KRW 15 million to the defendant on August 18, 2015 is recognized as a loan, and there is no lack of evidence to prove it contrary to the evidence No. 2-1 to evidence.

B. In a situation where there is no clear evidence as to the payment process, time, place of use, etc. of the said money to determine the claim for a loan of KRW 5 million, it is insufficient to recognize that the said money was a loan solely based on the statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff the Kakao Stockholm message (No. 5) for which the Plaintiff sought payment of the said money.