1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 2 million to the Defendant, KRW 20 million on May 20, 2015, KRW 20 million on June 11, 2015, and KRW 2.5 million on July 24, 2015, the Plaintiff determined that the Plaintiff’s repayment period for each of the above loans was completed as a lump sum subcontracted by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) that received a subcontract from D (hereinafter “D”).

Since the subcontracted project was completed on January 2016, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loans and the damages for delay.

B. Determination 1) The fact that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 2 million on May 20, 2015, KRW 20 million on June 11, 2015, and KRW 25 million on July 24, 2015 does not conflict between the parties. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of each of the evidence and arguments in the instant case, each of the instant evidence alone is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff leased each of the said money to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that money has been received, if the defendant contests against the plaintiff's assertion that the lending was made, the party bears the burden of proving that the lending was made.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179, Sept. 15, 2015). The Plaintiff did not submit any disposal document, such as a loan certificate, in relation to the instant case, and such document appears not to have been prepared.

On May 20, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that golf entertainment expenses for D executives, entertainment expenses for the on-site supervisor (employee of the E company issuing orders), and entertainment expenses on June 11, 2015, and on July 24, 2015, KRW 250,000,000 were borrowed by the Defendant as entertainment expenses for the head of the on-site supervision group. However, the Plaintiff paid each of the above money to the Defendant.