1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. From January 17, 2012 to November 16, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 40,000,000 in total to the Defendant’s account from the Plaintiff’s account in the name of C and the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “instant money”).

C. The remittance amount No. 2,00,000 on the date of remittance No. 17, 200,000 on the date of remittance from the account under the name of the Plaintiff 2,00,000 on January 17, 2012 2, 2012; 6,00,000 on April 17, 2012; 3,000,00 on July 6, 2012; 0.6,00,00 on April 2, 20, 200, 200,000 on April 2, 20, 200, 200, 3,000 on April 2, 20, 200, 200 on the aggregate of 0,000,00 on May 16, 200, 2004;

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. The Plaintiff, the primary cause of the claim, remitted the instant money to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 40,000,000 and the delay damages.

B. No obligation to lend is recognized to the Defendant who is the conjunctive claim.

Even if the Defendant received the instant money from the Plaintiff without any legal ground, and obtained a profit equivalent to KRW 40,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount of unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff and its delay damages.

3. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the primary cause of claim 1) Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties exchange money between themselves, the plaintiff asserts the cause of the receipt of money as a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972) and the plaintiff bears the responsibility to prove that it is a loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 2, 197)