1. The defendant shall pay 3,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from July 1, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff did not dispute to the Defendant that the Plaintiff remitted the sum of KRW 33 million to the Defendant eight times as follows is not a dispute between the parties:

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that he lent KRW 33 million to the defendant and sought the return thereof.

(2) On the other hand, the Defendant, around April 2016, decided to transfer the business rights, etc. of “Cstore,” which is the convenience store operated by the Defendant, to the Plaintiff at KRW 70 million. On the other hand, the Defendant returned KRW 1 million out of the money at the Plaintiff’s request, where the goods were paid KRW 30 million as the down payment, and the goods were paid at KRW 3 million thereafter. Since the contract for business transfer was unilaterally terminated by the Plaintiff, the down payment, etc. received from the Plaintiff should be confiscated. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s request cannot be complied with.

B. (1) In a case where the defendant asserts that the amount received between the original defendant is a loan, the burden of proving the fact of the loan is borne by the plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972, etc.). (2) We look at the premise of the foregoing legal doctrine.

When comprehensively considering the evidence submitted and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to see the loan of KRW 33 million issued by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff consistently asserted that the defendant lent the above 33 million won upon request to him for the preparation of purchase costs of shares and the payment of goods, and that the defendant denied the conclusion of the contract for the transfer of business claimed by him.

On the other hand, the Defendant alleged in the reply of August 29, 2017 that “it did not prepare a business transfer contract in writing, but the Plaintiff prepared and submitted the relevant documents directly by filing an application for change of the franchise owner with respect to the convenience store franchisor.” However, on the date of pleading on January 11, 2018, the business transfer agreement is also made.