1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement No. 1 of basic facts, the Plaintiff is a corporation that engages in multi-stage sales business and mail order business, and the Defendant is recognized to have registered as the Plaintiff’s member on June 23, 2016.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) After being registered as the Plaintiff’s member, the Defendant agreed to repay the said money after having borrowed KRW 5,000,000 from the Plaintiff on August 17, 2016. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the said money. 2) The Defendant did not borrow money from the Plaintiff.

The defendant is only registered as a member of the plaintiff, and the actual member is the defendant's husband B (the co-defendant in the first instance court, hereinafter referred to as "B").

B opened an account under the name of the Defendant due to bad credit standing, registered the Defendant as a member of the Plaintiff, and deposited KRW 5,000,000 from the Plaintiff on August 17, 2016.

B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, the fact that the plaintiff transferred KRW 5,00,000 to the defendant's account on August 17, 2016 is recognized.

However, in full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 3, the defendant's husband Eul, who is not the defendant, issued a loan certificate to the plaintiff on August 3, 2016 that "5,00,000 won is lent from the plaintiff to the plaintiff until September 6, 2016." It is acknowledged that Eul guaranteed the above loan obligation, and there is no other evidence that the defendant did not prepare a loan certificate to the plaintiff and there is no specific evidence that the plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the above transfer amount of KRW 5,00,000 to the defendant before the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case is filed, it is difficult to recognize that the above fact of recognition and the entries in Gap evidence No. 1 through 3 alone are sufficient to acknowledge that the above transfer amount of KRW 5,00,000,000 is borrowed from the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in light of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff is not the Defendant.