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. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) from February 2015 to June 2015, the Plaintiff spent or remitted to the Defendant the amount of KRW 15 million in cash and KRW 10 million on behalf of or to the Defendant.

The defendant paid the total of KRW 15 million on August 17, 2015 and on August 18, 2015, but did not pay the remainder KRW 10 million.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 10 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In order to make a claim for refund under a loan for consumption under a loan for consumption, the borrower must prove the existence of a loan for consumption that he/she lents money on the premise of return to the borrower. On the other hand, in order to recognize that, in cases where the borrower fails to prove the existence of a loan for consumption explicitly, an implied loan contract for consumption is concluded by taking into account the size of the remitted or substitute amount, the period or frequency of the repayment, the relationship between the borrower and the borrower, the existence of the time of return, etc., and the existence of an implied loan for consumption should be carefully determined. The fact that a loan for consumption was made by the borrower to the borrower or by substituted by the borrower, cannot be inferred that there was a loan for consumption.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments in each statement or image of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including numbers), the plaintiff appears to have remitted or delivered a considerable amount of money to the defendant between March 22, 2015 and June 17, 2015, and paid a reasonable amount of money on behalf of the defendant, or paid a reasonable amount of goods on the plaintiff's card on behalf of the defendant. However, on the other hand, the amount was relatively small amount of money transferred or repaid in lieu of the plaintiff's card.