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. Basic facts

A. On June 7, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred a total of seven million won (hereinafter “instant money”) to the Defendant’s deposit account on two occasions (hereinafter “instant money”).

B. Around April 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s father C married to the Republic of Korea, and without establishing a new marriage in Seoul, the Plaintiff was living in Seoul in his own workplace in Busan, while living in his own workplace in Busan.

On June 2010, the plaintiff, a husband of the defendant (the head of the plaintiff) around June 2010, decided that D will work in the automobile maintenance business place operated under the defendant's name, and the plaintiff was landed in Busan, together with the defendant's husband and C.

In order to do this, the Defendant purchased the same year after purchasing the “Seoul Metropolitan Transportation-Fagu E Apartment 311 Dong 1301, which is larger than the existing apartment with the exclusive use area of 134.83 square meters around March 20, 2010,” which is larger than the previous apartment.

5. 20. Along with the registration of ownership transfer, the above director was an apartment building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 8, Eul evidence 3, 9, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent the money of this case to the defendant by means of remitting it to the defendant's deposit account, so the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in the claim to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's argument that the amount of this case was claimed by the plaintiff was determined to Busan and together with the defendant's husband and wife and C, and the defendant was paid for the interior expenses of the apartment purchased by the defendant for this purpose, and thus, it is not possible to accept the plaintiff's claim.

3. Even if there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that money has been received, if there is no dispute, the cause of the receipt shall be proved by the plaintiff who asserts that it was received due to the loan for consumption.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). In light of the above legal doctrine, the health unit and the evidence revealed prior to the above-mentioned facts are all the arguments.