1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the Plaintiff’s act of raising marriage awareness around June 27, 2015 and reporting marriage around that time.

B. On March 3, 2015, the Defendant and C concluded a housing lease agreement with the lessee for an officetel located in Mapo-si as the lessee.

C. The above officetel rent deposit was KRW 190 million. Of them, KRW 50 million was loaned from a financial institution under C’s name, and the remainder was appropriated for the money that the Defendant and C collected.

On April 3, 2015, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 80 million to the Defendant’s account, and C used KRW 50 million, a part of the remitted money, to repay the money that was loaned by a financial institution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, 2-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On April 3, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 80 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 80 million and delay damages.

3. Determination

A. In a case where a transfer is made by transferring money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be made based on various legal causes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). Therefore, even if there is no dispute as to the fact that money was given and received between the parties, if the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the lending

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018, etc.). B.

The facts that the Plaintiff remitted 80 million won to the Defendant’s account on April 3, 2015 are as seen earlier, but the above 80 million won is the money that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant. However, the entry of No. 2-1 of the evidence No. 2 and the testimony of witness E of the first instance trial corresponds to the Plaintiff’s above assertion that E is the money that the Plaintiff lends to the Defendant, and some of E’s testimony are the Plaintiff’s spouse.