1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 12, 201, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s wife C to the Defendant’s account transfer.

B. The Defendant transferred, respectively, KRW 4 million to the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name of wife C, KRW 4 million on September 9, 201, KRW 4 million on December 12, 201, KRW 3 million on January 13, 201, and KRW 5 million on February 10, 2012.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On August 12, 201, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant on August 12, 2011, and thereafter lent the amount of delay damages as KRW 2 million per month.

B) Each of the above payments that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant is damages for delay on the above loans. The reason why the amount received is not 2 million won but 4 billion won is that the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to the Defendant. However, in this case, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 100 million as there is no evidence of cash lending. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D agreed that the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D purchased the name goods from Europe to divide the profits remaining after selling them to a third party. b) In accordance with the above business agreement, the Plaintiff invested KRW 20 million to the Defendant.

The name of the Defendant’s money that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff is a profit distribution.

B. Determination 1) Even though there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the money is received, if the cause of receiving the money is disputed whether it is a loan for consumption, the plaintiff asserts that it was received as a loan for consumption (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). Accordingly, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof as to whether the amount of KRW 100,000 is the amount that the plaintiff lent to the defendant. 2) The plaintiff bears the burden of proof as to whether it is the amount that the plaintiff lent to the defendant. 2) The statement in subparagraphs 3-1 through 3, 1-2, and 1-2, and the witness E's testimony, in light of the following circumstances recognized by considering the overall purport of argument as a whole.