1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff alleged that on July 19, 2004, the plaintiff lent KRW 100,000 to the defendant with the due date set as of August 11, 2004 without interest agreement, and sought the return of the loan.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant’s bank account on July 19, 2004 is not a dispute between the parties.

However, a 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 ownership in kind, quality and quantity (Article 598 of the Civil Act). It is natural that the other party agrees to do so.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270, Nov. 11, 2010). Moreover, in the event of remitting money to another person’s deposit account by means of a transfer of money, such remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, and repayment, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a consensus among the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the fact that such transfer was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such an agreement has been reached is asserted against the Plaintiff that the said remittance was caused by a loan for consumption.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). In this case, in light of the following facts and the judgment based on which evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is comprehensively considered in the testimony of the witness I of the first instance trial and the witness M of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit, given that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of lending, in light of the following facts and the judgment based on which each of the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial and the witness of the first instance trial are comprehensively considered:

① The Defendant, D, I, and M are siblings, and the Plaintiff is the wife of D.

② There is a loan certificate between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to KRW 100,000.