1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The fact that the plaintiff, on August 4, 2005, remitted gold KRW 40 million to the defendant on August 4, 2005 is not a dispute between the parties.

2. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion and the judgment on it are the above KRW 40 million loan, and the defendant asserts that the defendant should return it. The defendant asserts that it is only the investment money delivered by the plaintiff to invest in real estate together with the defendant.

Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the plaintiff is able to receive money between the parties, the reason that the plaintiff received money is a loan for consumption, and the defendant has the burden of proving that it was received due to the loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). According to the statement of No. 1 (Receipt), the plaintiff's assertion that it was received due to the loan for consumption only includes "the amount invested by the President of the CBB million won". Thus, the above evidence cannot be a evidence to acknowledge that the money transferred by the plaintiff is a loan for consumption, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it is a loan, and the above evidence is more consistent with the defendant's assertion.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.