The judgment of the first instance is revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

claim. The purport of the claim.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff in 2008 is a person who operated a room with his spouse C in the trade name of "D", and the defendant was a person who operated a motor vehicle maintenance business with the trade name of "E".

B. On December 3, 2008, a total of KRW 20,000 (hereinafter “the instant money”) was remitted from the Plaintiff’s spouse C’s account to the Defendant’s account.

(c)

On October 5, 2009, and December 23, 2009, total of 1750,000 won deposited into the Plaintiff’s account in the Defendant’s name.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. On December 3, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) on December 3, 2008, determined 20 million won as the purchase price for the Defendant’s mechanical maintenance as interest rate of 8.75% per annum; and (b) three years after the due date, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of 20 million won and interest or delayed damages.

The argument is asserted.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant money was not the Defendant but the Defendant’s former spouse F, and that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have concluded a consumption lending contract with respect to the instant money, and that the Plaintiff’s loan claim was extinguished due to the completion of commercial statute of limitations even if the fact that the contract was concluded for consumption lending

3. Determination

A. It is difficult to view the remittance of money as lending solely because it is difficult to view it as lending, and the burden of proof as to the fact of a contract for lending and borrowing of money in a lawsuit claiming the return of the loan is on the part of the plaintiff

In full view of the following circumstances, the above facts and the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the evidence of this court’s response to financial transaction information to G banks, which can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings, are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant by only the materials submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① The Defendant’s former spouse F (the decision to recommend divorce settlement on September 25, 2010) becomes final and conclusive and conclusive, and the Defendant and F.