1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant was making an investment in TM dex Fund, which was also introducing to the Plaintiff.

B. On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 6,500,000 to the Defendant’s account, and in addition, around June 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000 to the Defendant in cash.

C. On July 17, 2015, the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff KRW 1,500,000, totaling KRW 749,000 on July 17, 2015, and KRW 1,507,000 on July 20.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, witness C of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant lent KRW 15,00,000 to the Plaintiff’s investment funds and paid KRW 15,000,000 to the Plaintiff by paying interest equivalent to KRW 1,50,000 per week per week. Thus, the Defendant must return it to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion was known to the plaintiff while purchasing baltons from the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim is without merit, since the plaintiff participated in the eM eexexexpex fund in which the defendant invested and paid the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff's claim is without merit.

3. Even though there is no dispute as to the fact that money has been received between the parties to the judgment, the reason that the plaintiff received money is the consumption lease, and the defendant is the burden of proving that it was received due to the consumption lease.

However, the above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of lending (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff lent KRW 15,00,000 to the Defendant.

Rather, according to the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the witness C of the first instance court, which is the seat of the original and the defendant, also states that the plaintiff was aware that he made an investment to the defendant, and the defendant actually makes an investment in the Mexex fund.