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. Basic facts

A. On May 2012, the Plaintiff was engaged in the activities of the mountain conference, and there was a sign of restrictions on the Plaintiff’s communication with the Defendant.

B. On November 9, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 5,000,00 to the Defendant.

(A) Evidence No. 2, B, and 4). (c)

On December 17, 2012, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 5,000,00 to the Defendant.

(see evidence 4). (d)

On April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant.

“The message sent text messages.”

(See Evidence No. 6). 【Ground of Recognition No. 6】 A without any dispute, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 4 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) around November 2012, the Defendant lent KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff on November 9, 2012, on the following grounds: (b) stating that “A deposit to be paid to directors in a house shall be paid to the mother-and-child.” (c) the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 5,00,000,000.

On December 2, 2012, the Defendant lent KRW 5,00,000,00 on December 17, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff, on the ground that “The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 5,00,000 as the acquisition cost is insufficient.”

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 10,000,000 and damages for delay.

3. In light of the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned basic facts and the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff lent KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant each of the above 5,00,000,000,000 to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge each of the lending facts, in view of the interest rate of KRW 5,00,000 as of November 9, 2012 and the record of specific lending conditions such as the due date for payment, and there is no other evidence to prove each of the lending facts.

The Plaintiff’s claim premised on each of the above loans is difficult to accept.

① Around November 2012, the Defendant was aware of the new location by setting the rental period for the location where he was living. However, the Plaintiff was aware of this.