1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 19, 201, the Plaintiff paid KRW 135,069,601 in total by means of direct transfer to the Defendant’s account or lending the Plaintiff’s credit card to the Defendant by December 4, 2014, including transfer of KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s account.

B. On November 12, 2013, the Defendant transferred KRW 55,000 from the Defendant’s account to the Plaintiff’s account; KRW 2,000,000 from the Defendant’s account to the Plaintiff’s account on February 26, 2014; and KRW 4,000,000 from May 10, 2014 to the Plaintiff’s account via the Defendant’s account, the Defendant’s children.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff lent KRW 135,069,601 in total to the Defendant’s account by means of direct transfer to the Defendant’s account or lending the Plaintiff’s credit card to the Defendant, etc. on December 4, 2014, including the transfer of KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s account on August 19, 201, upon receiving a request from the Defendant for the lending of funds necessary for opening and operating the Plaintiff’s business. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 135,069,601 and delay damages therefrom.

B. The Defendant’s argument that the amount the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant is not a loan, but a donation made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant under each subparagraph. Even if the Plaintiff’s payment to the Defendant was a loan, it constitutes illegal consideration that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant for the purpose of maintaining internal relations with the Defendant, which constitutes illegal consideration that was made in violation of good customs and other social

3. Determination

A. Even if there is no dispute as to the existence of the amount of money between the parties, the cause that the Plaintiff received is a loan for consumption, and if the Defendant contests it, it is due to the loan for consumption.