Of the instant lawsuits, the part demanding the payment of KRW 80,200 shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. The Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 80,200 of the cost of demand procedure in the instant lawsuit. However, the cost of demand procedure is part of the cost of lawsuit, and the amount paid as the cost of lawsuit can be repaid through the procedure for determining the amount of cost of lawsuit under the provisions of the Costs of Civil Procedure Act after the final judgment becomes final and conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da96997, Mar. 24, 201). Of the instant lawsuit, the part seeking payment of the cost of demand procedure in the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

2. Determination as to loan claims

A. The Plaintiff asserted in the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) that the Defendant’s opening cost of the clothing store is necessary, and the Plaintiff loaned KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant several times on November 26, 2014 to December 10, 2014. At the time, the Defendant agreed that the loan would be repaid at the lapse of one year from the opening date of the clothing store, and the Defendant opened the store on January 1, 2015. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 55,00,000 and the delay damages from January 2, 2016 thereafter. 2) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had opened the clothing store upon proposing the said business.

At the time, the Plaintiff used KRW 55,000,000 as business funds, such as sales lease deposit, not to lend it to the Defendant.

B. Since 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 the same kind, quality, and quantity as such, there must be an agreement between the parties as to the above point (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270, Nov. 11, 2010). The burden of proving the conclusion of the contract for a loan for consumption in a lawsuit seeking a return of loan is asserted to the Plaintiff.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da12280, Jun. 14, 2013). According to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 7-9, the Plaintiff on November 2014.