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.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, at the auction procedure regarding Changwon-si C Apartment 205 Dong 203, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the Plaintiff loaned the remainder to be awarded a successful bid for the said apartment. On November 17, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to the Defendant without setting the interest rate.

Then, on September 1, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff. Since there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to preferentially cover the principal amount of KRW 200 million, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the interest accrued at the statutory interest rate of KRW 7,916,00 per annum prescribed by the Civil Act during the lending period (from November 17, 2015 to September 1, 2016).

On November 17, 2015, the above KRW 200 million that the Plaintiff delivered to the Defendant to the Defendant is not a loan, but an investment in the above apartment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred the status of the successful bidder from D who was awarded the bid for the above apartment with the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the above KRW 200 million is a loan is without merit.

Judgment

Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties exchange money, while the plaintiff asserts that the cause of receiving money is a loan for consumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that it is a loan for consumption.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). In light of the fact that the Defendant denies the lending of the Plaintiff’s assertion of lending, the burden of proving that there was an agreement on lending exists is against the Plaintiff.

According to Gap evidence No. 1-1, the fact that the plaintiff remitted the above KRW 200 million to the defendant's account on November 17, 2015 is recognized.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, i.e., the plaintiff did not set the period of repayment or interest at the time of remitting the above KRW 200 million to the defendant, and also did not prepare the loan documents such as the loan certificate.