1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserts that, on March 8, 2013, the Defendant was liable to pay the instant loan to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff was the Defendant, who received the said money from the Defendant, by means of making a deposit without passbook, with the Defendant’s account known to C on March 8, 2013 (hereinafter “instant loan”).

In full view of the records and the purport of the evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings, even though the Plaintiff was deemed to have made a deposit without a passbook in the Defendant’s bank account on March 8, 2013, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant lent KRW 5 million from the Plaintiff solely on these circumstances and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

[In full view of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8, C prepared and attached to the Plaintiff, stating that C borrowed KRW 5 million from the Plaintiff, and that C borrowed KRW 8 million from the Plaintiff. ② The Plaintiff was awarded a favorable judgment on July 24, 2014 (Usan District Court Decision 2013Gau194243) in writing submitted by the Plaintiff in the above case (Dasan District Court Decision 2013Dau194243). The Plaintiff asserted that “C is a teacher at D High School and is the teacher at D High School, who works as a nurse at the hospital.” It was argued that C lent money to C on the ground that it is an economically stable family, and ③ the person who submitted the loan to the above C was stated only in the certificate of deposit without his/her name, as the one on which he/she submitted the loan to the Plaintiff.”

Plaintiff

In addition, "C, known to it, would make repayment within several days, and I believe the words of Nonparty C by lending money, and the plaintiff believed C on March 8, 2013.