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 Plaintiff asserted that he/she remitted to the Defendant a total of KRW 618,300,000,000 from September 30, 2014 to March 9, 2015, and only received only KRW 442,70,00 from the Defendant.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received KRW 70,000,000 from the Defendant’s debtor I, and appropriated the loan principal for repayment.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the remaining loans of KRW 105,60,000 ( KRW 618,300,000 - KRW 442,700,000 - KRW 70,000) and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. First of all, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff and the Defendant engaged in credit business from time to time, and that there is no money to exchange for the money transaction before September 2014.

B. The Plaintiff sought the payment of a loan only on the basis of the details of remittance as alleged in the Plaintiff’s assertion. The Plaintiff and the Defendant appear to have made multiple monetary transactions (such as lending, donation, repayment, bearing of expenses, settlement, payment to the obligee of the other party, subrogation to the obligee of the other party, receipt of reimbursement in lieu of the other party’s obligor, and issuance of a check under the name of the other party, etc.) during the period of the Plaintiff’s assertion (from September 30, 2014 to March 9, 2015). In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the evidence related to the details of remittance submitted by the Plaintiff alone exists with respect to the Defendant that there is a claim for the amount of loan as alleged by

1) Although the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant is a large amount of money, the documents of disposal, such as the loan certificate, receipt, loan contract for consumption, etc., are not completely prepared between the parties except for the following evidence Nos. 12 (Evidence). 2) According to the evidence Nos. 12 and 12-1 and 2, the Defendant is a passbook in most of the transactions between the Plaintiff’s father and the Defendant’s father C on October 30, 2014.