1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff’s loan claim as the principal lawsuit, and the Defendant claimed the return of the tax amount paid as the counterclaim. The court of first instance dismissed both the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit and the Defendant’s counterclaim.

Since the plaintiff appealed against this, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for the loan, which is the principal claim of the plaintiff.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following changes in part of the grounds for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The modified part

(a) The phrase “Evidences 1 through 3, 1, 4, and 5 of A” shall be changed to “Evidences 1, 2, 4-2, 4-1, 5-1, 2, 5-2 of A” to “Evidences 1, 1 through 3, 1, 4, and 5-1, 5-2 of the judgment of the first instance.”

(b) to 10 pages 6 through 10 of the first instance judgment shall be amended as follows:

【In light of the following circumstances, Gap’s evidence Nos. 3, 4, 11 through 19, 32 through 34, Eul’s evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 6, and the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, it is difficult to conclude that the money of this case was a loan to the defendant of the plaintiff’s individual account solely with the fact that the money of this case was transferred to the defendant from the plaintiff’s individual account, and there is no other evidence to support this. Therefore, the plaintiff’s assertion on the plaintiff’s principal claim is without merit).

(c)after the fourth decision of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

- After the transfer of the instant money, no evidence was submitted to deem that the Plaintiff sought repayment of the loan to the Defendant, and four years have passed since the transfer of the instant money, and the request for the instant payment order was made only after the lapse of four years.

4. Conclusion.