1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties, etc. 1) From November 1, 2005 to January 5, 2009, the Plaintiff operated the so-called “D” processing, wholesale and retail business with the trade name “D”. Meanwhile, E operated the fishery products processing, wholesale and retail business with the trade name “F” from January 1, 2009 to October 31, 2014, and the Plaintiff closed its business on January 5, 2009 and retired from the said F as the vice president office on April 2014.

3) On February 23, 2009, the Defendant, a person operating a mining plantation, supplied diggings to F, operated by E upon the Plaintiff’s introduction. (B) On February 23, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20 million to the Defendant from his agricultural bank account (hereinafter “instant money”).

2) From December 8, 2009 to September 15, 2010, the sum of KRW 109,892,065 was transferred from the Gyeongnam Bank account in the name of F Company E to the Defendant’s name (based on the indication of the passbook). As such, the sum of KRW 109,892,065 was transferred to the Defendant. [based on the recognition] fact that there is no dispute, Party A’s evidence 1 through 6 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) On February 23, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the instant money to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant lent KRW 20 million at the purchase price of the refrigerent public bonds. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay the said loan and the damages for delay thereof to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant paid the instant money to the Plaintiff with the pre-frigerent money supplied to D, and that the said money is not a loan.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the facts acknowledged as above and the purport of the entire pleadings, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone concluded a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant and paid the instant money as a loan.