1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around 2008, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C were affiliated with a multi-level multi-level seller of the trade name “D” that sells anti-Bathics, etc., but the Plaintiff was a subordinate-class seller; the Defendant was a superior-class “flamond” rating; the Defendant was a higher-class “ well-dying” rating; and C was a subordinate-class “D” rating.

B. On March 5, 2008, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s national bank account, and the Defendant, on March 6, 2008, remitted KRW 19 million to the NAC account on the following day.

C. From May 2, 2008 to July 14, 2011, C transferred KRW 400,000 to the Plaintiff’s bank account or national bank account in the name of the Plaintiff each month for each period of time from May 2, 2008 to July 14, 201 (Provided, That this shall not apply to September 2008, January 1, 2009, October 201 to December 12, 201, May 201, and June 17, 201). The Defendant transferred KRW 1 million to the Plaintiff’s national bank account in the name of the Plaintiff on July 14, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that on March 5, 2008, the plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the defendant on the condition that he is paid interest of KRW 20 million per month, and that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 20 million and the amount of damages for delay of agreement calculated at the rate of KRW 24% per annum to the plaintiff, and that the defendant only used the defendant's account in the course of lending the loan amount of KRW 20 million to C, and that the defendant argued that the non-the defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the plaintiff, and thus, he cannot accept the plaintiff's claim.

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s national bank account on March 5, 2008. However, the above evidence and the statement in Eul evidence No. 2 as seen above are all the arguments.