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 asserts that "The defendant is obligated to pay the above money and its delay damages to the plaintiff since he lent KRW 80,000 to the defendant on May 27, 2009."

In this regard, the defendant did not borrow the above money, and the above money was invested by C, the husband of the defendant, in the account under the name of the defendant.

'' asserts to the effect that ‘' is.

2. Even though there is no dispute as to the fact that the judgment party is able to receive money, the cause of the receipt is the loan for consumption, and the defendant asserts that the payment was received due to the loan for consumption.

(see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 80,000,000 to the account under the name of the Defendant on May 27, 2009 is no dispute between the parties.

However, it is difficult to believe that the testimony of Gap evidence 3-1 and witness D of the first instance court is not reliable, and the statement of Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, and 8 is insufficient to recognize the fact that the above money transferred to the account under the name of the plaintiff to the defendant is a loan to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is reasonable.

The judgment of the first instance is justified in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.