1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, did not enter into an agreement with the Defendant regarding interest of KRW 250,000,000 on July 16, 201, and KRW 200,000 on June 9, 201, the period of repayment was one month after each of the above loans.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 450,000,000 and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no dispute between the parties as to the fact that there was a receipt of money but the loan was lent is proved by the burden of proof on the Plaintiff who asserted that the loan was lent.

(Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, and Supreme Court Decision 201Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014). (B)

The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 250,000,000 to the Defendant on July 16, 2010, and KRW 200,000,000 on June 9, 201 is no dispute between the parties.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that he was given a loan to the defendant, but the defendant rather lent money to the plaintiff and received a return.

There is no direct evidence that the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant of KRW 250,000,000 as of July 16, 201 and KRW 200,000,000 as of June 9, 201 (the document of disposal, such as tea, etc., and the witness who directly appeared during the negotiations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant).

Furthermore, the fact that C and D, the representative director of the Plaintiff’s representative director, do not distinguish between the company and the company and the company’s representative director, and engaged in money transactions between the Plaintiff or C’s account under the name of the Defendant or D, from around 2009 to around 2011, that 13,218,190,000 won was remitted from the account under the name of the Plaintiff or D to the account under the name of the Plaintiff or C on 36 occasions, and that 2,050,000 won was remitted from the account under the name of the Plaintiff or C to the account under the name of the Defendant or D on 13 occasions does not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, the issue of whether the Plaintiff lent KRW 450,000 to the Defendant is how the Plaintiff and the Defendant made a monetary transaction as above.