1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On February 4, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 9,700,00 to the Defendant at an interest rate of three copies per month, and received reimbursement from the Defendant of KRW 300,000 on February 23, 2009, and KRW 3,000,00 on September 2, 2010.

By applying the interest rate of 30% per annum as stipulated by the Interest Limitation Act, if the payment is appropriated to the principal, 9,567,424 won per original as of September 2, 2010.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining amount of KRW 9,567,424 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum as stipulated in the Interest Limitation Act from September 3, 2010 to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant did not borrow the above money from the plaintiff, and C borrowed the above money from the plaintiff using the defendant's account.

2. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 9,700,000 to the Nonghyup Bank account in the name of the Defendant around February 4, 2009, and the Defendant transferred KRW 300,000 to the Plaintiff using his national bank account on February 23, 2009 is recognized.

However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare the instrument of disposition, such as a loan certificate, and according to the witness C’s testimony of the first instance trial witness C, C can recognize the fact that “The above Nong Bank account in the name of the Defendant is in accord with its own borrowed account.” As such, the facts acknowledged earlier and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s lending. There is no other evidence to

Rather, in full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the defendant alleged that the defendant remitted 300,000 won, which was remitted to the plaintiff on February 23, 2009, to Eul in the above-mentioned manner upon C's request, and lent it to Eul. In fact, the defendant actually included the above money in the amount of damage when the defendant filed a complaint for fraud, and Eul deposited KRW 9,70,000 with the borrowed account (the defendant's bank account in the name of the defendant) as above.