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. From March 2012, the Plaintiff became aware of Nonparty C and the Defendant’s friendship with the introduction of C as a de facto marriage.

B. On April 22, 2013, the Plaintiff wired KRW 28.4 million to the account in the name of the Defendant in the name of the bank.

In addition, the defendant remitted 30 million won to C on February 28, 2014.

C. Meanwhile, C committed suicide on March 24, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The parties’ assertion asserts that, since the amount of KRW 28.4 million remitted to the defendant on April 22, 2013 is the amount loaned to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan and the damages for delay to the defendant.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the said money was borrowed from C, and that on February 28, 2014, the interest of KRW 1.6 million was paid in full.

B. The judgment for a loan for consumption is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return the same kind, quality, and quantity as such (Article 598 of the Civil Act). As such, there must be an agreement between the parties as to the above point. On the other hand, when the plaintiff asserts that the specific amount remitted to the other party is a loan, while the defendant asserts that it is a loan borrowed from others, it is the obligation to assert and prove that the above amount is the amount received as a loan for consumption by the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts of recognition, the evidence and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 9 as well as the whole of the pleadings, Eul and the defendant have operated a casino business in the Philippines and had a large number of money transactions. In particular, the amount remitted from C to the defendant.