1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On January 23, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant on the condition that the Defendant would pay back at the time of the Defendant’s retirement, and the Defendant retired on February 28, 2018.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 50 million and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return the same kind, quality, and quantity (Article 598 of the Civil Act). It is natural that the other party agrees to the above point.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 2010). In addition, in a case where money is transferred to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the party’s intent as to loan for consumption has been jointly determined solely on the fact that such transfer was made.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012). The burden of proving the existence of the parties’ intent lies in the assertion that the remittance was caused by a loan for consumption.

B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff was found to have remitted the amount of KRW 50 million to the defendant on January 23, 2017, but there is no objective evidence to prove the fact of borrowing, such as the loan certificate stating the due date and interest rate, and the plaintiff did not account at any time for the amount of KRW 50 million claimed as a loan, and the defendant received a transfer of KRW 55 million from the plaintiff on January 23, 2017 and received KRW 50 million from the plaintiff on the same day as the recipient of the plaintiff on the same day.