1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s claim is requested to lend money from the Defendant, and USD C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on behalf of the Defendant on January 10, 2014 (US$; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the same year.

2. USD 5,000, each year;

2. The Defendant lent USD 25,000 to each transfer of USD 10,000.

As the Defendant repaid KRW 11 million to the Plaintiff on February 20, 2014, the Defendant is obliged to pay the remainder of USD 15,000 [$25,000 - USD 10,000] and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

2. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1-1-3 and the whole arguments, the plaintiff's statement and the whole arguments are as follows: USD 10,000 on January 6, 2014, and the same year.

2. USD 5,000, each year;

2. It is recognized that each remittance of USD 10,000 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant money”) has been made.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent USD 25,00 to the Defendant in the manner that the Plaintiff pays for the goods to Nonparty Company instead of the Defendant’s obligation to pay for the goods, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

(1) There is no objective evidence such as a loan certificate that the Plaintiff transferred the instant money to the non-party company, and that the Defendant agreed to pay the said money after the vehicle.

B. The plaintiff argues that "The plaintiff entered into an import agency contract with the defendant and received US Besia, and paid the price for the goods at the defendant's request," and the import agency contract, subsequent invoice, and import declaration certificate, etc. (the evidence No. 4-1, No. 2) are applied.