1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the judgment against the Plaintiff, which ordered payment under paragraph (2) below, shall be revoked.

2...

1. The parties' assertion

A. On November 5, 2004, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 65 million, including KRW 50 million on November 5, 2004, and KRW 15 million on November 8, 2004, to the Defendant’s account from the Plaintiff husband C by means of remitting from the Defendant’s husband C to the Defendant’s account.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s above KRW 65 million did not lend to the Defendant whether the Plaintiff invested or lent to D.

65 million won deposited into the Defendant account was withdrawn and delivered to D by the Defendant.

2. There is no dispute over the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 65 million to the Defendant, and it is reasonable to view that the said money was leased to the Defendant by the Plaintiff in full view of the following circumstances.

On August 16, 2004, the Plaintiff leased KRW 10 million to the Defendant through her husband’s account, and thereafter, on August 20, 2004, leased KRW 10,100,000 to the Defendant. On September 24, 2004, the Plaintiff leased KRW 5,00,000 to the same method, and on October 4, 2004, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 5050,000 as principal and interest. The Plaintiff did not separately prepare a loan certificate at the time, there is no dispute between the parties.

As such, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, even before the instant case, did not prepare a loan certificate at the time of the instant loan in that they had been making money transactions using the same account as the instant loan without a loan certificate.

On the other hand, if the plaintiff lent or invested in D as the defendant's argument, the plaintiff and D are not aware of the fact that it is extremely rare to transfer money to the defendant's account that is not a loan certificate or an investment agreement while lending or investing money of KRW 65 million. It is very rare to understand that transfer money to the defendant's account, not a loan certificate or an investment agreement.

In addition, the defendant did not properly explain the circumstances in which the 65 million won was deposited into his account, not D, for a long time.

B. The Defendant withdraws KRW 65 million as a check and transferred it to D. D.