1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On April 1, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s name bank account (hereinafter “instant account”) managed by the Defendant.

B. On April 4, 2011, the Defendant remitted KRW 20 million from the instant account to D (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) account.

C. The Defendant remitted from the Defendant’s G account to the Plaintiff’s name account, KRW 1 million on May 5, 201, KRW 100 million on June 2, 2011, and KRW 1 million on July 4, 2011, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 10-1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the claim is that the Plaintiff claimed that the amount of KRW 30 million transferred to the instant account is a loan to the Defendant, while the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was merely a direct investment of KRW 30 million in the non-party company or the representative director of the non-party company by the introduction of the Defendant and the Defendant, and that it was merely a use of the C’s account.

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to 30 million won that the Plaintiff transferred to the account of this case to the Defendant in consideration of the evidence set forth in subparagraph 2-1, 2, and 4-2 of the evidence set forth in subparagraph 2-2, Eul evidence set forth in subparagraph 4-2, Eul evidence set forth in subparagraph 7, Eul evidence set forth in subparagraph 11-2, and Eul evidence set forth in subparagraph 11-2 of the evidence set forth in the court of first instance, and some testimony set forth in the witness set forth in the court of first instance set forth in the evidence set forth in subparagraph 8-2 and witness set forth in the witness set forth in the court of first instance set forth in the evidence set forth in subparagraph 8-2, and

1. If the Plaintiff was directly investing in Nonparty Company or F, the representative director thereof, it would be a normal transaction method to directly transfer money through the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff for the remaining grounds for the payment of the investment amount, or to prepare a separate disposal document. However, the Plaintiff transferred all of KRW 30 million to the instant account, and the investment relationship between the Plaintiff and Nonparty Company or F.