The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purpose of the petition and appeal is the judgment of the first instance.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff deposited the Defendant’s account in KRW 7 million on October 30, 2017, KRW 200 million on October 31, 2017, and KRW 3 million on December 15, 2017 is without dispute between the parties (hereinafter “the instant money”). 2. As otherwise alleged, the allegation and determination is made on February 2.

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff lent KRW 12 million to the Defendant three times, and the Defendant paid only KRW 2 million among them.

The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 10 million and delayed damages.

B) On August 7, 2017, the Defendant asserted that KRW 10 million was repaid in cash to the Defendant.

2) The Defendant did not borrow 12 million won from the Plaintiff.

The Defendant worked for “C” operated by the Plaintiff from March 2017 to October 2017, and the Defendant’s salary is KRW 2.5 million per month.

The defendant received 12 million won as a settlement amount of accounts for smuggling's benefits.

Since then, the plaintiff's request for return was returned 2 million won.

At least as the Defendant did not receive benefits from the Plaintiff for a period of two months, the Defendant is obligated to return the remainder of five million won to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant’s loans worth KRW 10 million lent to the Plaintiff on August 7, 2017 shall be offset by the Defendant’s loans.

B. Although there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that money has been received, when the Defendant contests the loan, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proof as to the fact that the loan was made before the loan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). In light of the following circumstances, the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 1, 2, and 3, whether the Defendant’s wage claim and the Plaintiff’s obligation are paid, and whether the Plaintiff’s obligation and the Plaintiff’s loan are repaid, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the instant money was remitted to the Defendant.