1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Where a person transfers money to another person’s deposit account and transfers money, the remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement among the parties to a loan for consumption, etc. solely on the sole basis of the fact that such remittance was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such an agreement was consistent exists is the Plaintiff claiming that the remittance was made based on the loan for consumption, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff directly lent KRW 60,000 to the Defendant on August 28, 2014.

In the claim of this case claimed by the defendant in borrowing the above KRW 60,00,000 from the plaintiff at least, there is a transfer (Evidence A 1) that can be known that the transfer transaction was made to the account in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant as the only evidence submitted by the plaintiff. In light of the above legal principles, it is insufficient to view that the above evidence alone had the intention to make a monetary loan or guarantee, as alleged by the plaintiff, between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.