1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: ① (a) on June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30 million to the Defendant (the payment period: December 30, 2017); (b) on July 10, 2017, KRW 10 million (the payment period: February 28, 2018); and (c) on August 30, 2017, KRW 70 million (the payment period: February 28, 2018). Since the Defendant partially paid to the Plaintiff under the name of interest, the Defendant is obligated to pay the loan amount of KRW 70 million and delay damages therefrom.

2. Since a loan for consumption is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return such ownership in the same kind, quality and quantity, the above point must be decided by the agreement of the parties.

In addition, in a case where money is remitted to another person's deposit account, the remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as loans for consumption, investment, donation, repayment, entrustment of custody, and consignment of delivery. Therefore, solely on the fact that such remittance was made, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a consensus among the parties to a loan for consumption, and the burden of proving that the remittance was made based on the loan for consumption is the party asserting that the remittance was made based on the loan for consumption.

According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap 2, 8, 9, and 11 (including paper numbers), the fact that the plaintiff remitted part of the money claimed as a loan to the defendant's name to the defendant's account, and that the defendant also received a total of KRW 100,000 from September 30, 2017 to June 4, 2018 to KRW 3,650,000,000,000 from September 30, 2017 to the defendant can be acknowledged.

However, there is no document of disposition, such as a loan certificate, which was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no objective evidence to recognize that the Plaintiff had made a specific agreement on the period of repayment, interest, etc. at the time when the transfer was made to the Defendant. The Plaintiff 1 and the Defendant 1 submitted by the Plaintiff.