The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person operating a brin restaurant in the vicinity of the construction site, and the defendant is a person working as the head of the site at C-Newly constructed site, etc.

B. From the account in the name of “D (Ecafeteria)” to the Defendant’s name account, KRW 3 million was transferred on September 15, 2015, and KRW 15 million on October 19, 2015, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff leased KRW 18 million to the Defendant by means of remitting from the Defendant’s friendly D account to the Defendant’s account two times. As such, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 18 million and interest thereon.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the above KRW 18 million was received in connection with the entrustment and operation of the management right of the restaurant, and that it did not borrow money from the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) In the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as a loan for consumption, a gift, and a repayment. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an intent of the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the sole basis of the fact that such transfer was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that a loan was given and received between the parties, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proof as to the fact that the Defendant asserted the loan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014).