1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion was around 2015 that the Defendant leased a building owned by the Plaintiff and operated the same business with C.

Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 45,00,000 to the Defendant’s account on August 11, 2015, and transferred KRW 30,000 to C’s account known by the Defendant on September 9, 2015, and lent KRW 75,00,000 in total to C.

The defendant is obligated to return the above loan to the plaintiff and pay damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. The loan for consumption 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 such kind, quality and quantity as such (Article 598 of the Civil Act). Thus, it is natural that the other party agrees to the above point.

(2) In cases where a person transfers money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may take place based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, etc. As such, the mere fact that such remittance was made cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement among the parties to a loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such an agreement was jointly reached exists is the Plaintiff asserting that the remittance was made based on a loan for consumption.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). B.

The Plaintiff wired KRW 45,00,000 to the Defendant account on August 11, 2015, and wired KRW 30,000,000 to the C account on September 9, 2015 is no dispute.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff lent the amount as alleged by the witness C and 1-10 evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1)