1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff lent to the defendant the remaining 38.5 million won after deducting the 1.5 million won interest paid to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 38.5 million won interest and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff remitted money to the deposit account in the name of the defendant, but the defendant does not borrow the above money from the plaintiff.

2. Since a loan for consumption is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return the same kind, quality, and quantity (Article 598 of the Civil Act). As to the above point, there must be an agreement between the parties.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 2010). Moreover, in cases of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, the said remittance may result in various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, custody, or entrustment of delivery, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a mutual consent of the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the fact that such remittance was made. The Plaintiff asserts that the said remittance was made due to a loan for consumption. The burden of proving that there was such mutual consent is the Plaintiff’s assertion that the said remittance was made due to a loan for consumption.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012 (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). According to the evidence A 2-1 through 4, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the name of the Defendant to KRW 9.7 million on May 27, 2014, KRW 9.5 million on June 27, 2014, KRW 9.5 million on June 27, 2014, KRW 9.65 million on July 22, 2014, KRW 3.59 million on August 14, 2014, and KRW 6 million on a deposit account in the

However, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence Nos. 3 and 6, evidence Nos. 1, and evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers), and the results of the response to the order to submit financial transaction information to the President of the IBK and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the Defendant is more than KRW 300 million in total on several occasions from July 2012 to August 2014.