1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 11, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s deposit account, KRW 45 million on July 23, 2017, and KRW 5 million on July 29, 2014 (hereinafter “instant money”).

B. On July 10, 2014, the Defendant prepared and rendered to the Plaintiff a letter of loan stating “The above amount of KRW 10 million per day is regularly borrowed” (hereinafter “the instant certificate of loan”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) lent the instant money to the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 60 million and damages for delay. 2) The Defendant’s assertion received the instant money upon the Plaintiff’s request and received the payment of the said money from the Defendant to C and D, and did not borrow the instant money, and thus, cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. Determination 1) In a case where a transfer is made to another person’s deposit account by means of a transfer of money, etc., the remittance may be made based on various legal causes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made, when the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made, the Defendant bears the burden of proving that the lending was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179, Sept. 15, 2015).

However, the above facts and the evidence presented by the plaintiff alone are recognized as lending the money of this case to the defendant.