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. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 25 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff lent KRW 25 million to the Defendant by means of remitting it to the bank account under the name of the Defendant several times from 2011 to 2013.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's arbitrary payment of money in return for the introduction of the construction to the plaintiff is not a loan, and thus the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent money, even though there is no dispute between the parties as to the existence of the number of money, has the burden of proving that the loan was lent to the Defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 5 million to a bank account under the name of the Defendant; KRW 10 million on May 12, 2013; and KRW 10 million on May 16, 2013, may be recognized either by a dispute between the parties or by a statement in the evidence No. 1, No. 1, 2, and No. 1. 1.

However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have a loan certificate for the said money; ② even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, there was no interest agreement on the said money; and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit at the lapse of five years after the last remittance. In light of ordinary monetary lending transactions, the foregoing circumstances appear exceptionally; ③ According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff extended additional KRW 20 million around May 201, while not receiving a loan of KRW 5 million from April 1, 201. As such, the circumstance that the Plaintiff extended additional money without any security or loan certificate is an exception.