1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff wired KRW 130,00,000, and KRW 10,000,00 on April 3, 2013 to the Defendant’s account under the name of the vessel C (hereinafter “instant vessel”) for the repair cost of the vessel C (hereinafter “instant vessel”); and (b) lent money to the Defendant on April 5, 2013.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 140,000,000 won and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant the sum of KRW 140,000,000 as alleged by the Plaintiff does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized by the statement in Gap evidence No. 1.

B. However, when the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant lent money to the Plaintiff even if there was no dispute as to the fact that the said money was given and received between the parties, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proof as to the lending (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018), and in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the said money to the Defendant solely on the basis of the above recognition and evidence No. 2, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

① Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appeared to have become aware of each other on April 2013, which was around the time when the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant, and did not have any particular friendship until that time.

Nevertheless, a specific loan certificate between the Plaintiff and the Defendant has not been prepared, such as the due date, agreement rate, etc.

② There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the obligation five years after the date of the above remittance from the date of the request for the payment order in this case.

③ On April 17, 2013, the instant vessel was registered as a sole owner of D Co., Ltd., the Defendant’s representative director, and was jointly owned by D and E Co., Ltd (the Plaintiff was an internal director, and the Defendant was an auditor) on July 15, 2014.