1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The Plaintiff, on March 5, 2014, remitted the amount of KRW 500,000 to the Defendant’s account, and KRW 1,800,000 on March 8, 2014, respectively, to the Plaintiff’s account. The Defendant, on January 28, 2014, remitted the amount of KRW 1,50,000 to the Plaintiff’s account, and KRW 60,000,000 on February 14, 2014, and KRW 80,000 on March 10, 2014, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) lent KRW 500,000 on March 5, 2014, and KRW 1,800,000 on March 8, 2014 to each Defendant. Among them, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 1,500,000 to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Defendant and the Defendant were to pay KRW 80,000 to the Plaintiff on the grounds that they were repaid from the Defendant. (2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant are obliged to pay the said money to the Defendant on the basis of internal relations. The said money was paid to the Plaintiff as the living expenses, and KRW 1,800,000 on March 8, 2014, who are public officials, was directly invested by the Plaintiff via the Defendant to D, the head of the investment company.

B. Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties to the judgment on the cause of the claim exchange money, the plaintiff asserts that the cause of the receipt of money is a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972. It is difficult to readily conclude that the cause of receiving the money is immediately a donation between men and women having internal relations. Whether the cause is a loan for consumption or a donation shall be determined by taking into account the developments leading up to exchanging the money, the source, amount, and the intention of return.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 50,00,00 on March 5, 2014, and KRW 1,800,000 to each Defendant’s account on March 8, 2014 to each Defendant’s account. In addition, the following circumstances, namely, ① the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which are acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 1, and 3.