1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended by this court is dismissed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is the spouse of the network E, the joint plaintiff of the first instance trial, B and C, and the defendant are children of the network E.

B. The network E died on September 20, 2002.

C. The Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 5,000,000 on October 18, 2004, and KRW 55,000,000 on December 20, 2005 to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that he lent the above money to the defendant. The defendant alleged that he received the above money from the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) Since a loan for consumption is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return such ownership in the same kind, quality, and quantity, there must be an agreement between the parties as to the above point (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270, Nov. 11, 2010). The burden of proving the conclusion of a loan for consumption in a lawsuit claiming a return of loan is against the Plaintiff who asserts its effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1280, Jun. 14, 2013). Meanwhile, in a case of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as a loan for consumption, donation, and repayment, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff had the intent to act as to the loan for consumption on the sole basis of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff (see, 2016Da2716161, Jul. 26, etc.