1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On March 21, 2016, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 28 million to the Defendant, KRW 1 million on March 22, 2016, KRW 1.8 million on March 22, 2016, KRW 1.8 million on March 25, 2016, KRW 35.8 million on March 26, 2016, and KRW 5.8 million on March 26, 2016. Since the Defendant has not paid this up to the date, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said loans to the Plaintiff KRW 35.8 million.

B. Although the Defendant borrowed KRW 15 million from the Defendant, it is not obligated to return the borrowed money with gambling money as illegal consideration.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant borrowed KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff as gambling money, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 35,80,000 to the Defendant solely based on the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number, if any, and each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) submitted by the Plaintiff, and the testimony of Gap witness G of the trial party witness G, which exceeds the above money, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

B. Even if the fact of lending the Plaintiff’s assertion is recognized, in light of the following circumstances that are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is highly probable that the lending of money, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is likely that the Plaintiff directly lent the money to the Defendant for gambling, or that the Defendant lent the money to the Defendant by instead of paying the money for gambling obligations to others.

In this case, the lending of the above money constitutes illegal consideration under Article 746 of the Civil Code, such as the defendant's assertion, and thus, it is impossible to seek payment from the defendant.

As such, the plaintiff's above assertion is the same as the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① On March 20, 2016, the Plaintiff stated that he/she lent KRW 15 million to the Defendant with money for gambling at a gambling place. On the loan method, the head of a Tong, which was used for the loan method, is KRW 6 million and written as the limit of withdrawal is written.