1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 54,990,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 2, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 7, 2015, the Plaintiff borrowed 3 million won from the well-dying Loan (ju), 13 million won from the HK Savings Bank on August 10, 2015, 10 million won from the JT-Friendly Savings Bank, 24 million won from the Hyundai Savings Bank, and 5 million won from the mountain and loan company.

B. On August 7, 2015, the Plaintiff remitted the said loan amount to Defendant B’s national bank account, KRW 20,490,000,000,000 on August 10, 2015, KRW 4.9 million on August 10, 2015, KRW 6.99 million on August 2, 2015, including KRW 699,00,000,00,000,000,000 to Defendant C’s national bank account, and remitted KRW 4,50,000 on August 11, 2015, KRW 34.5 million on a total of KRW 60 million on August 10, 2015.

C. The Defendants were married at the time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 4 and 5 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants concurrently borrowed 54.99 million won in total of the above money.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that Defendant B borrowed the entire said money in person.

B.1) The key issue of this case is whether Defendant C borrowed money from the Plaintiff along with Defendant C. (2) Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that there was a receipt of money between the parties, one of the parties asserts that the receipt of money is a loan for consumption, and the other party asserts that the receipt of money was a loan for consumption, and the other party has the burden of proving that it was received as a result of the loan for consumption,

In addition, in case of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, such remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, etc., and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that there was the intention of the party to the loan for consumption solely on the fact that such remittance was made.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012). 3) On the instant case, according to the Plaintiff’s statement No. 6-1, the Plaintiff’s Internet on the JT-Friendly Savings Bank and Hyundai Savings Bank’s website.