1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that since the plaintiff lent KRW 4,500,000 to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan and the damages for delay to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s father C requested on November 2, 2012 to lend KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff. On November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 5,000,000 in the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant (agricultural Cooperatives D). (2) The Plaintiff received KRW 1,030,000 from the Defendant’s account on September 9, 2013, and deposited KRW 1,00,000 on September 5, 2013.

3) The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not know, and his father C used the Defendant’s above account. 【The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. In light of the following circumstances revealed through the above facts acknowledged and the evidence revealed, namely, ① the Plaintiff and the Defendant was unaware of each other; ② the Plaintiff has been engaged in transactions, such as continuously lending money to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account upon the Defendant’s father C’s request; ③ the Defendant’s father C used the Defendant’s agricultural bank account, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant solely on the ground that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 5,000,000 with the Defendant’s agricultural bank account. Rather, the Plaintiff appears to have lent the above money to the Defendant’s father C.

3. If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is consistent with this conclusion, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.