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.

1. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties, upon receipt of a request from the Defendant to transfer the actual amount of money instead of the acquisition tax and registration tax generated while purchasing electric vehicles, and on February 24, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 3,073,715 to the account of Pauriman Co., Ltd., Pauri-gu, Inc. to lend the said money.

(2) The Plaintiff, upon receipt of a request from the Defendant for the payment of the fourth premium, transferred KRW 4,400,000 to the Defendant’s account on April 16, 2015, and lent the said money.

(hereinafter “The instant fourth premium loan”). The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of the instant insurance premium loan and the four premium loan, the total amount of KRW 7,473,715, and delay damages.

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff, at the time, agreed on the request of the plaintiff to purchase electric vehicles in the name of the defendant, and agreed on the condition that the plaintiff bears the registration tax, and accordingly, the plaintiff, the actual purchaser, transferred KRW 3,073,715 to the seller under the name of direct acquisition and registration tax while purchasing electric vehicles.

The defendant has received 4,400,000 won from the plaintiff in order to make a false return on the plaintiff's earned income at the tax office upon the plaintiff's request that the evidence of income was required for bank loans at the time, and to pay the income tax imposed accordingly.

2. A person who asserts the existence of a right to judgment bears the burden of proof as to the elements of the provision on the occurrence of a right (see Supreme Court Decision 64Da34, Sept. 30, 1964). Even if there is no dispute as to the existence of a right between the parties, when the defendant contests the plaintiff's assertion that the party lent the right, the person bears the burden of proof as to the lease.

Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972, Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972.