1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,00,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from July 31, 2019 to August 8, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a letter of commitment as of March 23, 2019 (hereinafter “instant letter of commitment”), and the content thereof are as follows:

The defendant shall pay 43,00,000 won borrowed until July 30, 2019, and shall state in writing that any legal measure may be taken if the promise is not fulfilled.

On April 18, 2019, the Defendant paid KRW 12,000,00 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the nature of the above money is a loan, while the defendant asserts that the above payment was a donation from the plaintiff, and that the above payment was formally prepared due to a dispute arising from the plaintiff's home company.

B. Determination 1) Where a remittance is made to another person’s deposit account, the remittance may be made based on various causes, such as loans for consumption, donation, repayment, and simple delivery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). Thus, even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the parties are able to receive money, the Plaintiff claims that the cause of receiving money is a loan for consumption. On the other hand, if the Defendant asserts that it was received due to a loan for consumption, the Plaintiff is liable to prove that it was received due to the loan for consumption, and the remittance of money to another person’s deposit account may be made based on various causes, such as donation, repayment, and investment, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a consensus among the parties to the loan for consumption. 2) According to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff’s notification of the amount of money as KRW 31 million to the Defendant on March 11, 2019; 1.