The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, on July 20, 200, lent KRW 45,000 to the defendant on July 20, 2009, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 45,000,000 and delay damages therefor. The plaintiff transferred KRW 45,00,000 from his own account to the account under the name of the defendant on July 20, 2009 does not dispute between the parties.

Since a transfer to a deposit account may be made based on various causes, such as a loan for consumption, donation, repayment, simple delivery, etc., even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the amount can be received, the plaintiff asserts that the cause of receipt of the amount is a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it was received due to a loan for consumption, and the plaintiff asserts that it was received due to

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). In light of the following circumstances, each of the items of evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 45,00,00 to the Defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

① The Plaintiff is a person who operated a dan in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and at the time, the Defendant appears to have become aware of the Plaintiff while working for the said dan as its head of business, etc. In light of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, or the details of money transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the amount of KRW 45,00,000, transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendant

Nevertheless, there is no loan certificate between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no objective data to verify interest, maturity, etc.

② On this basis, the Plaintiff is the Defendant.