1. Of the part regarding the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) amounting to KRW 7,740,90.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for a loan as the principal lawsuit, and the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a loan as a counterclaim, a claim for reimbursement of credit card bills, a claim for damages due to an improper reversal of the contract on the business, and a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

The first instance court partly accepted a loan claim and a credit card use claim during the defendant's counterclaim, and dismissed both the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the defendant's remaining counterclaims.

Since the plaintiff appealed only, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claims for loans and claims for the amount of credit card bills used in the principal lawsuit and counterclaims.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 as a whole, the fact that: (a) the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff was transferred from the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s account; (b) KRW 4 million on July 20, 2016; (c) KRW 1 million on October 21, 2016; (d) KRW 1500,000,000 on May 12, 2017; (e) KRW 26.5 million on June 26, 2017; and (e) KRW 16.5 million on July 2, 2017 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s invoice”).

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent KRW 13.5 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 13.5 million and the damages for delay.

C. The plaintiff's assertion that he lent money between the parties to the judgment even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the money was given and received, the defendant bears the burden of proof as to the fact of the lending.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, etc.). As seen earlier, the fact that the Plaintiff sent the instant amount to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Plaintiff to the Defendant account by account transfer is recognized.

However, the statement No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings are stated.