1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On June 25, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) to supply 671,000,000 restaurant steel and sand position panel, etc. to F (hereinafter referred to as “F,”) a local subsidiary of E’s hub (hereinafter referred to as “F,” which is a limited liability company under the Braziln Act).

The defendant left the Republic of Korea on January 28, 2013 upon receipt of the request from D, the actual operator of E, and was appointed as the representative of F on October 10, 2013.

On April 10, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 80 million from the Defendant’s personal account to the Defendant’s personal account. On October 29, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million from the F’s account to the Plaintiff’s account.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings, but the plaintiff lent KRW 80 million to the defendant on April 10, 2013. On October 29, 2013, the plaintiff was paid KRW 10 million by the defendant, and the defendant was entitled to return the remainder of KRW 70 million.

However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent 80 million won to the Defendant’s personal account on April 10, 2013, and that the Defendant wired 10 million won from the Defendant’s account in F’s name to the Plaintiff’s account on October 29, 2013. There is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent 10 million won to the Defendant.

Rather, in full view of the statements in Eul's evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (including the serial number) and the testimony of the witness witness D at the trial, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff used the defendant's account at D's request when lending KRW 80 million to D in relation to the above supply contract. Thus, the debtor of the above loan is not the defendant but D.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant led to the confession of the above 80 million won in the first instance trial.

The defendant in the first instance court's response on May 2, 2014 is the defendant's KRW 80 million from the plaintiff.