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. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The parties’ assertion asserts that around December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff leased KRW 8 million to the Defendant upon receiving a request from the Defendant to lend money to the Defendant, while making it urgently necessary to appoint a company it operates, the Plaintiff borrowed money on a day.

Upon the termination of the lease agreement between the Defendant and C, the Defendant demanded the return of the cost of freezing warehouse receipt to C. However, the Defendant’s offer that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 8 million as compensation instead of giving up the request for the return of the acquisition price to C, because the Plaintiff did not want to have a dispute between C and which the Plaintiff concluded the lease agreement with his own introduction.

B. The plaintiff's assertion that he lent money between the parties to the judgment even if there is no dispute as to the fact that he received money, has the burden of proof as to the fact of the lending when the defendant contestss the defendant.

(2) According to the records of evidence No. 1, 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014; Supreme Court Decisions 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018; 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018; hereinafter “A”), the Plaintiff is deemed to have transferred KRW 8 million to the D Depository Account under the name of the Defendant on December 30, 2012; however, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 8 million to the D Depository Account under the name of the Defendant on December 30, 2012; on the other hand, the following circumstances revealed in full view of the evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, (i) the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit only after three years have passed since the date of borrowing the loan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Dec. 31, 2013).