1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased only KRW 10 million to the Defendant on September 1, 2004, and only KRW 22 million on May 21, 2015, and sought the return of KRW 22 million.

The defendant recognized that he received money from the plaintiff, but the plaintiff and the defendant did a restaurant around August 2014. However, the plaintiff and the defendant invested approximately KRW 30 million and the defendant divided about KRW 70 million into 3:7. Accordingly, the defendant started the restaurant and closed the restaurant, and the defendant did not borrow money and did not have any obligation to return it.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 22 million to the Defendant, Eul’s certificate Nos. 1 through 6, 8, Eul’s certificate Nos. 7 and 9-2, and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare a disposal document to support the lending of money, such as a loan certificate, etc.; the Defendant entered into a contract with Ro-mpP lending Co., Ltd.; the Defendant opened a restaurant with the name of “D” on July 1, 2015, on March 2, 2016, after opening the restaurant; the Plaintiff also closed the restaurant on March 2, 2016; the Defendant was in charge of the principal service at the above restaurant; the Defendant had already paid KRW 12 million to the Defendant’s Han Bank account at the time of receiving KRW 12 million from the Plaintiff on May 21, 2015; and there was no evidence to acknowledge the remainder of the lease deposit and the remainder of the down payment to the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.