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 Plaintiff’s ground of appeal citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment is not significantly different from the allegations made by the first instance court, and it is recognized that the fact-finding and judgment by the first instance court is justifiable in light of the overall evidence submitted by both parties to the trial.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following supplementary judgments as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and thus, this is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Supplementary determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 50 million on December 27, 2013 on the part of the Plaintiff’s account of Defendant National Bank account: The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million on December 27, 2013: Around December 2010, the Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant: the amount lent to the Plaintiff.

50 million won has been repaid.

The Plaintiff’s claim on the actual accounts of this case on January 28, 2014, the Defendant National Bank account [the remittance of this case] 50 million won on the part of the Plaintiff, i.e., the Plaintiff’s claim on the actual accounts: the loan of this case newly lent.

The actual claim is that the plaintiff paid the above KRW 50 million, which he lent to the plaintiff.

B. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that: (a) around December 2010, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant; and (b) around that time, the Plaintiff received KRW 1 million per month (2% per month) interest payment; and (c) on December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant.

After January 28, 2014, the Defendant again lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant through the instant remittance, and received interest in KRW 1 million from February 15, 2014 to February 15, 2014.

Then, I argue that ‘the matter' is.

C. Determination 1) In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 14, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 10, 12, and Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 3, the following circumstances may be revealed. (A) On Dec. 27, 2013, the actual purport of the deposit of this case, which was alleged by the plaintiff as the cause of the claim of this case, is limited to the remittance details of this case as of January 28, 2014, which were alleged by the plaintiff as the cause of the claim of this case.