1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in the entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, with a comprehensive consideration of the whole purport of the pleadings:

The plaintiff and the defendant became aware of each other through C.

B. On August 23, 2013, between D and D in the name of C, the Plaintiff entered into a joint agreement with the purport that D invested funds in E, a corporation with D management, and that D will carry out the F&C business. At the time of the agreement, the Defendant was present as a witness.

C. On March 8, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 3,000,00 to the Defendant.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant and C on the joint project, and invested more than KRW 400 million for the said joint project. The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to lend money to the Plaintiff with the said joint project being promoted. On March 8, 2016, the Plaintiff lent KRW 3,00,000 to the Defendant. Although the Defendant promised to repay the said money to the Plaintiff within one month, the Defendant did not fully know the Plaintiff, and became aware of the Plaintiff through the Plaintiff and D, who carried on the joint project.

The defendant lent 3,00,000 won to C, and upon C's request, the plaintiff remitted 3,000,000 won to the defendant on behalf of C.

Therefore, the defendant did not borrow the above KRW 3,000,000 from the plaintiff.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment and the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff may be found to have remitted KRW 3,00,000 to the Defendant on March 8, 2016 upon the request of the Defendant for a loan of money from the Defendant, and on March 8, 2016, upon receipt of a request from the witness of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff transferred the money to the Defendant within the month when the repayment period has been due, and solely on the evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, the above fact of recognition is insufficient to reverse the fact of recognition.

On the other hand, the following circumstances are revealed in addition to the purport of the entire arguments.