1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were related to the Plaintiff.

However, the defendant asserted that the living together with the plaintiff was living together with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is not the plaintiff.

B. The details of the Plaintiff’s transfer to the Defendant using his own bank C account in his name are as follows.

The remittance amount on the date set forth in Table 1 No. 1 530,000 on June 28, 2016: 200,000 on July 11, 2016; 530,000

C. The details of transfer by the Plaintiff to E, a lessor of a building leased by the Defendant or the Defendant using the bank account in his own name, are as follows.

Defendant 1,00,000 on August 1, 2016, Defendant 1, 200 on August 1, 201, 2016, Defendant 1,00,00 on August 8, 2016, and Defendant 1,00,00 on August 1, 2016, August 25, 2016; 1,00,000,00 on August 25, 200 on May 26, 2016; 10,000 on June 1, 20, 200 on September 6, 2016; 2007; 1,000,00 on September 6, 200 on September 25, 2016; 1, 2000 on September 60, 200 on the Plaintiff’s payment of customs duties;

14. On December 16, 2016, Defendant 15, 220,00 on January 16, 2015, 200 on January 16, 2017, 200 16, totaling 9,326,240, 9,326,240 on January 17, 2017, without any dispute, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. As to the request for loans

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Defendant lent KRW 300,000 to the Defendant on June 28, 2016, and KRW 230,000,000, in total, on July 11, 2016.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the above money is merely merely a loan to the money paid by the plaintiff as a group of community expenses.

B. In case of remitting money to another person's deposit account, etc., the remittance can be made based on a variety of legal causes. As such, the claimant has the burden of proving that the remittance is a loan under a monetary loan contract with the person who receives the money.

(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014). The foregoing legal doctrine is applicable.