1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) from June 18, 2012 to February 25, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 6,444,00 to Defendant B by means of remitting money to Defendant B’s deposit account or paying in lieu of the rent to be paid by Defendant B.

Defendant B subrogated to the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 23 million, and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 21,819,000 from Defendant B.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan to the Plaintiff KRW 19,621,00.

On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 5 million to Defendant C Co., Ltd. by means of remitting the amount of KRW 5 million to the Defendant’s deposit account.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 5 million.

B. Although there was a fact that the Plaintiff asserted by the Defendants remitted money to the deposit account in the name of the Defendants, the Defendants did not borrow the said money.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine 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 the same kind, quality, and quantity (Article 598 of the Civil Act). As such, there is a mutual agreement between the parties as to the foregoing point.

In addition, in a case where money is remitted to another person's deposit account, such remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as loans for consumption, donation, repayment, custody, or consignment of delivery. Therefore, solely on the fact that such remittance was made, it cannot be readily concluded that the parties to a loan for consumption had the intent to agree with the loan for consumption, and the burden of proving that the remittance was made based on a loan for consumption is the person who asserts that the remittance was made based on

B. As to the claim against Defendant B, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the amount as alleged by the Plaintiff to the deposit account in the name of Defendant B and the deposit account in the name of E does not conflict between the parties.

However, in light of the following circumstances: