1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On March 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s mother, who was aware of the early 2012 police officer, lent 6 months as the Defendant’s mother, C, and D needed funds to conduct the Defendant’s heading business, and said, the Plaintiff was sent 20 million won to the Defendant’s heading on March 26, 2012, knowing that the Defendant would engage in the same business as the Defendant C, and that the Plaintiff was aware that she was running the business as the Defendant and C and lent 20 million won to the Defendant’s heading.

Even in the early April of the same year, the Plaintiff lent KRW 3 million to the Defendant on April 20, 2012 upon C’s request, and KRW 2 million on September 18, 2012 to the Defendant in cash.

However, even after September 26, 2012, when the due date was due, the Defendant failed to repay the total amount of KRW 25 million, and upon the Plaintiff’s demand, E, the Defendant’s seat on April 30, 2013, repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 10 million.

In other words, the plaintiff lent the above money to the defendant and C, and even if the defendant knew of the fact of borrowing C, he should be held liable to C to allow C to use the passbook.

B. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant operated D with C, but only lent the name of the head of the Tong to his mother, who is a bad credit holder, and therefore, C had never been aware of the loan from the Plaintiff, and C had borrowed money from the Defendant and the Defendant’s relatives.

In other words, the plaintiff is only lent to C, and it is not lent to the defendant, and there is no reason for the defendant to repay the loan claimed by the plaintiff.

2. The written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant. The statement of No. 3 and testimony of the witness witness F of the trial court, which seem to meet part of the Plaintiff’s assertion, do not coincide with the time when F took up a talk that the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant at the Defendant’s store, and the borrowing date of the Plaintiff’s assertion. However, F took up a loan certificate jointly signed and sealed by the Defendant and C at the Plaintiff’s house, but the Plaintiff.