1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant, who was a member of the Plaintiff’s argument C church, shall have a new difference, and requested the Plaintiff to lend the purchase fund to the Plaintiff.

On July 6, 2015, the Plaintiff, at the request of the Defendant, remitted KRW 12,00,000 from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Plaintiff, and KRW 27,00,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of his wife E, to the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not repay the above loans.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff money as stated in the claim.

B. The Defendant’s money remitted to the Defendant by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is a donation of KRW 27 million to the Cridge with the Plaintiff’s intent to donate in purchasing vehicles to be used at Cridges.

The defendant shall not borrow money from the plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the overall purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 5 and the whole arguments and arguments, the following facts are as follows: (1) The plaintiff, a member of the family of the C church, transferred the total of KRW 12,000,000 from the plaintiff's account under the plaintiff's name E, and KRW 27,000,000 from the plaintiff's account under the plaintiff's name E, to the account under the defendant's name, a member of the C church; (2) the defendant purchased Kanman D (hereinafter referred to as the "automobile of this case") from the plaintiff's car on August 17, 2015; and (3) the fact that the vehicle price of this case was paid in the way of settling KRW 27 million received from the plaintiff and Samsung Card No. 10,630,000 with the defendant's name, which was completed on August 19, 2015.

B. However, when the defendant contests the plaintiff's assertion that there was no dispute between the parties as to the fact that money was received, the party bears the burden of proof as to the loan.

I would like to say.

Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972