1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff deposited a total of KRW 100 million on June 12, 2013 with the Defendant’s account, and KRW 30 million on June 14, 2013.

B. The Defendant deposited KRW 28.5 million in the Plaintiff’s account from July 4, 2014 to July 3, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant and received only KRW 28.5 million. The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant the remainder of KRW 71.5 million (= KRW 100 million – KRW 28.5 million) and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion did not have borrowed money from the Plaintiff, and due to C’s solicitation, investment in the fund in which C et al. participated, including the Plaintiff’s said money amount of KRW 100 million, and 300 million in total, suffered losses.

3. Even though there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that the amount is received, if one of the parties claims that it is a loan for consumption and the other party claims that it is the cause of the loan for consumption, the claimant has the burden of proof.

In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the following purport: (a) whether the money paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is a loan or a health account; (b) the Defendant introduced funds in which the Plaintiff was involved by the Defendant’s principal C, etc. on June 2013; and (c) the Plaintiff deposited KRW 100 million in the Defendant’s account; and (d) the Defendant deposited KRW 100 million in total with other investors, such as the Plaintiff’s money and D, E, and F, and the Defendant invested KRW 300 million in C, etc.; (c) the Plaintiff urged the Defendant, who recommended the Plaintiff to make an investment in which the principal has not been repaid, without any investment return; and (d) the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to repay KRW 100 million in total on several occasions as seen earlier.