1. The plaintiff's appeal, including the claim added in the trial, is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be assessed after the appeal is filed.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion primarily lent KRW 25,00,000,000, around May 10, 2018 to June 18, 2018 without having set interest and due date, and thus, the Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of KRW 25,00,000 and delay damages against the Defendant.

Preliminaryly, the Defendant agreed to return the above KRW 25,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is claiming for the payment of KRW 25,000,000 and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that there is a number of money between the parties which are the primary claim, the plaintiff's assertion that the loan was lent is proved by the burden of proof against the plaintiff who asserts that the loan was lent.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179, Sept. 15, 2015). The fact that the Plaintiff remitted money to the Defendant as follows is no dispute between the parties:

The remittance date amount of KRW 19,893,066, which was KRW 25,00,000 on June 13, 2018, is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 25,00,00 to the Defendant on May 17, 2018, KRW 798,500,000 on May 17, 2018, KRW 798,800 on June 15, 2018, KRW 5,572,500 on June 13, 2018, however, the fact of the recognition alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 25,00,000 to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), and the purport of the testimony and the entire pleadings by witnesses of the first instance trial, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff as a loan to the Defendant, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff sent money whenever the settlement of D operated by the Defendant was needed without any written agreement, such as a loan certificate, etc.; (b) the Plaintiff was a relatively small amount of cash transfer; (c) the Plaintiff allowed the Plaintiff to use the Plaintiff’s credit card when purchasing tools and other materials; and (d) the key purpose of the Plaintiff’s delivery of money seems to have been to have been to obtain profits by accepting D or disposing of D with a third party.

Therefore, it is true.