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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, on March 7, 2007, remitted KRW 10,000,000 to the account under the name of the Defendant, KRW 40,000,000 on May 15, 2007, and KRW 50,000 on May 25, 2007 to the account under the name of Mongolia Company C (hereinafter “instant company”).

B. On May 2, 2007, KRW 10,000,000, and KRW 7,000,000 on July 25, 2008, from the account under the name of the Defendant, were remitted to the Plaintiff each of the KRW 45,590,00 on October 15, 207 from the account under the name of the instant company.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant a sum of KRW 100,000,000 on three occasions from March 7, 2007 to May 25, 2007, and only KRW 62,590,000 among them was repaid by the Defendant.

Accordingly, if the amount repaid by the Defendant is appropriated for the payment of the legal obligation in accordance with the order of Article 479(1) of the Civil Code, the loans remaining as of July 25, 2008 are KRW 41,685,677 as stated below.

(5) The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the balance of the principal on October 15, 2007, 90,59,8362,109,836,436,484,46,46,519,836,836 on October 16, 2007 as of October 25, 2007, 90,000,000 as of the date of appropriation of the annual interest rate on the date of appropriation of the principal to the repayment of the principal as of the date of appropriation of the principal of the appropriation of the principal.

3. Determination

A. In the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, and repayment. Therefore, the mere fact that such transfer was made cannot be readily concluded that there was the intent of the parties to the loan for consumption (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that there was such a concurrence of intent cannot be readily concluded.