1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s KRW 5 million to the Defendant on March 9, 2013, and the same year

4. 29.1 million won, the same year.

7. On September 19, 199, a total of KRW 7.455 million including KRW 1450,000 (hereinafter “the instant money”).

B. At the time of the payment of the instant money, the Plaintiff was the head of a branch office of the Young Life Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C branch”) with the main business of designing and selling insurance policies, and the Defendant was an insurance solicitor of the said C branch around April 2013.

C. Meanwhile, on May 29, 2013, the Defendant remitted KRW 1,450,00 to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant requested the defendant to lend money to him/her at the early stage of his/her employment, and lent 7,450,000 won to him/her, and only 1,455,00 won out of this, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan and the damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant was an insurance company other than the defendant's insurance company, leaving his job to C branch, and was paid the money of this case from the plaintiff for the purpose of supporting the plaintiff (Scarrate costs), and did not borrow money from the plaintiff.

3. The following circumstances revealed in light of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1-1 and 3-1 of evidence Nos. 1-1 and 3-1, i.e., there was no loan certificate in relation to the Plaintiff’s payment of the instant money to the Defendant, and ② the Defendant began to work at C points from April 20, 2013, and the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant.

3. 9. The Defendant remitted KRW 5 million to the Defendant, and 3. The Plaintiff transferred money to other insurance solicitors working for a branch C other than the Defendant, on several occasions, and the Plaintiff brought a loan lawsuit against the said designer as in the instant case.