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.

1. On February 28, 2015, the Defendant received a certificate of loan from C to the effect that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 72,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff would repay it until December 30, 2015, and thus, the Plaintiff received the instant claim amount from C. As such, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff is unlawful due to its lack of interest in the lawsuit. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff is subject to the instant safety defense to the effect that it is unlawful.

In the lawsuit for performance, the plaintiff is eligible for the defendant in the lawsuit for performance, and the lawsuit of this case is claiming the return of the loan against the defendant on the ground that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is obligated to return the loan to the plaintiff as alleged by the defendant.

Even if there is no benefit in the lawsuit of this case, it is not the interest in the lawsuit of this case

Therefore, the defendant's main defense cannot be accepted.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) between September 10, 2013 and December 16, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 101,550,90 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant money”); and (b) the Defendant repaid KRW 58,350,000 in the aggregate of KRW 5,150,00 in the name of the principal repayment and KRW 53,200 in the name of the principal repayment.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the principal amounting to KRW 48,350,90 (=the principal amounting to KRW 101,550,90 - the principal amount repaid 53,200,000) and damages for delay.

B. Even though there is no dispute as to the fact that there is a receipt of money between the parties to the relevant law, the reason that the plaintiff received money is the consumption lease, and the defendant is liable to prove that it was received due to the consumption lease if he files a dispute over the cause of the receipt.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972, etc.). C.

Judgment

According to Gap evidence No. 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff between September 10, 2013 and December 16, 2013.