1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On July 22, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on July 22, 2010, determined the period of repayment to the Defendant two months after the lapse of two months; and (b) deducted the amount of KRW 1.8 million from the monthly interest of KRW 30 million; and (c) the Defendant is obligated to pay the principal and interest of the loan.

B. The plaintiff alleged by the defendant does not lend money to the defendant but merely lend money to or invest in the defendant C through the defendant.

3. Determination

A. Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that there is the receipt of money between the parties, the reason that the Plaintiff received the money is a monetary loan for consumption, and the Defendant is liable to prove that it was received due to a loan for consumption if it is asserted that it was received due to the loan for consumption, and the transfer of money to another person’s deposit account may be made based on various causes, such as donation, repayment, investment, etc. in addition to a loan for consumption. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that such transfer was made with the intent of the parties to a loan for consumption.

In addition, since the difference between a monetary loan contract and an investment contract is uncertain, the distinction between a loan and an investment contract shall be made by comprehensively taking into account whether the principal is guaranteed, the reasons and motives for paying the amount, the fixedness of the principal, the perception and intent of the parties, etc., on the basis of the uncertainty of the occurrence of profit.

B. As to the instant case, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 28.2 million to the Defendant’s account on July 22, 2010, but the Plaintiff failed to submit the materials proving the existence of the maturity or interest agreement, which is the essential element of the loan, or the corresponding loan certificate, and there is no fact that the Plaintiff was provided a guarantor or a material security to secure the return of the loan.

Although the period of reimbursement has expired and seven years has passed since the plaintiff asserted, the lawsuit in this case is filed.