The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The fact that the plaintiff remitted a total of KRW 47,00,000 to the defendant as follows is not disputed between the parties, or recognized by the purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs A and 2.

(1) KRW 5,00,000 on May 16, 2014 (2) (3) 5,000,000 on May 30, 2014 (3) 10,000,000 on June 3, 2014 (4) KRW 7,000,000 on June 13, 2014

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 47,00,000 to the Defendant from May 16, 2014 to June 13, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion that he did not borrow money from the plaintiff.

Of KRW 47,00,000, which the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant on May 16, 2014, KRW 25,000,000, which was remitted to the Defendant, was transferred to the Defendant’s account by the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s account, and instead, the Defendant delivered to C the Plaintiff’s account on behalf of the Defendant, and the remaining KRW 22,00,000, which was remitted to the Defendant’s account upon request of the Defendant for the settlement of accounts of the agricultural corporation Co., Ltd. owned by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In a case where the relevant legal principles have remitted money to another person’s deposit account, the remittance may be made based on various causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, simple delivery, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a mutual consent of the parties to the loan for consumption solely on the fact that such remittance had been made.

Therefore, even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that there is a receipt of money, the plaintiff asserts that the cause of the receipt of money is a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it was received due to a loan for consumption.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). Moreover, the other party’s money received is not a loan, but for other purposes.