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 asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant on May 8, 2014, and KRW 28 million on May 9, 2014, and thereafter, the Defendant repaid only KRW 8 million out of the above loans.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 50 million and damages for delay.

B. Around May 2014, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant sought to purchase 239 square meters (789/1451 equity interest) among the 1,451 square meters in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do. At the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant would allow the Plaintiff to purchase 100 square meters out of 239 square meters that the Defendant decided to purchase at the Plaintiff’s request, and the registration was completed in the name of the Defendant due to the Plaintiff’s circumstances.

On the other hand, the defendant borrowed KRW 8 million from the plaintiff for the payment of acquisition tax and brokerage commission during the purchase process of the above land.

For this reason, the defendant received 50 million won in purchase of land from the plaintiff, 8 million won in total, 58 million won in loan, and 80 million won in loan, and thereafter repaid 8 million won in loan.

2. Determination

A. In case of remitting money to another person's deposit account, etc., the remittance can be made based on a variety of legal causes. As such, the claimant has the burden of proving that the remittance is a loan under a monetary loan contract with the person who has received the money.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972). B.

However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 30 million with the Defendant’s account on May 8, 2014, and KRW 28 million on May 9, 2014. However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff deposited the said money to the Defendant and entered the content “B” and “B” (written evidence No. 3), the above fact alone is insufficient to recognize that the amount remitted by the Plaintiff is a loan under a monetary loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

3. The plaintiff's conclusion