1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is that the reasoning for this part of the basic facts is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) from 2008 to 2015, ① remitted the sum of KRW 167,985,406 to the Defendant’s or to the person designated by the Defendant; (b) the Defendant repaid the sum of KRW 172,240,292 on behalf of the Plaintiff or C; (c) the Defendant paid a total of KRW 205,997,041 on behalf of the Plaintiff’s credit card use; or (d) the Defendant lent a total of KRW 53,857,612 by means of paying interest on the amount loaned by the Plaintiff’s credit card instead of KRW 7,634,873 on behalf of the Plaintiff (i) the sum of interest on the amount loaned by the Defendant with the Plaintiff’s credit card (i.e., KRW 167,985,406,240,292,205,97,041,634,873).

However, until now, the defendant paid 250,000,000 won out of the above money to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 303,857,612 (=53,857,612) - 250,000).

The plaintiff is seeking only the payment of KRW 300,000,000, which is a part of the plaintiff, and damages for delay.

B. Determination 1) A loan for consumption is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return such kind, quality, and quantity as such (Article 598 of the Civil Act). It is natural that there exists an agreement between the parties as to the above point (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270, Nov. 11, 2010). In addition, in a case where money is transferred to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as a loan for consumption, a donation, and a repayment, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that such transfer was made with the intent of the party as to a loan for consumption (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012).