Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s KRW 7,400,000 against Defendant B and its related thereto from December 29, 2017 to September 27, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 7, 2016, the Plaintiff approved KRW 5,000,000,00 by the Plaintiff’s credit card from the D Teaching Institute (hereinafter “instant Private Teaching Institute”) that is a franchise store operated by Defendant B under the name of Defendant C, the spouse of Defendant C (hereinafter “instant Private Teaching Institute”).

The Plaintiff remitted KRW 500,000,000 to Defendant C’s account, respectively, and KRW 5,000,000 on December 9, 2016.

On December 13, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 3,000,000 to Defendant B’s parent-friendly E account.

B. Defendant B paid each of the Plaintiff KRW 300,000,000 on January 19, 2017, and KRW 300,000 on October 10, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on August 7, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 5,000,000 to Defendant B; (b) on September 15, 2016, transferred KRW 500,000 to Defendant C’s account in the name of Defendant C; and (c) on December 9, 2016, transferred KRW 5,000,000 to Defendant C’s account; and (d) on December 13, 2016, transferred KRW 3,00,000 to Defendant B’s parent-friendly account.

Since Defendant B repaid KRW 600,000 among them to the Plaintiff, Defendant B is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan KRW 12,900,000 (= KRW 5,000,000, KRW 5,000,000, KRW 3,000,000 - KRW 600,000) and damages for delay from December 29, 2016.

B. In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 13 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff approved KRW 5,00,000 as the expenses of the private teaching institute of this case by using the plaintiff's credit card on August 7, 2016 under the condition that the plaintiff who was living together with the defendant B would have received a request for ing the card tin, and subsequently received a payment of the credit card tin at the expense of the private teaching institute of this case by using the plaintiff's credit card. The defendant Eul paid KRW 20,00,000 to the plaintiff upon receiving a complaint from the plaintiff due to a residential intrusion and detained by the plaintiff, and the defendant Eul thereafter paid the plaintiff the agreed amount too much."