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. The Defendant received a certificate of loan from C that “the Defendant lent KRW 40,000,000 to C” and received a notarized act.

The above 40,000,000 won includes 20,000,000 won invested by the Plaintiff.

B. As between December 26, 201 and August 5, 2013, the Defendant wired the money to the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the name of each of the following: (i) December 26, 2011; (ii) February 26, 2012; (iii) March 26, 2012; (iv) June 28, 2012; and (v) August 8, 2012; and (vii) September 10, 2012; and (vii) January 14, 2013; and (i) April 10, 2013; and (ii) May 16, 2013; and (iii) August 5, 2013; and (iv) KRW 50,000 in the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the name of each of the Plaintiff’s bank;

C. On May 14, 2014, the Defendant remitted KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the said bank.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On September 201, 201, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 15,000,000 and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

The defendant did not borrow the above money from the plaintiff, and the above money was lent to C.

B. The Defendant prepared a loan certificate stating that he/she lent KRW 40,00,000 including the Plaintiff’s contribution to C; the Defendant paid KRW 500,000 to the Plaintiff since September 201; the Defendant paid KRW 500,000 each time between December 26, 201 and August 5, 2013; and the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 5,00,000 on May 14, 201.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances that are acknowledged by the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the witness C’s testimony, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000 to the Defendant solely on the basis of the above facts of recognition, and it is otherwise recognized.