1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 26, 2007, from the Plaintiff’s new bank D account under the Plaintiff’s name C to the new bank E account under the Defendant’s name.

B. On February 27, 2007, from the above new bank account under the Defendant’s name to F, KRW 15 million was remitted.

C. F. on March 30, 2007, remitted KRW 15 million to the above new bank account under the Defendant’s name.

On March 31, 2007, from the above new bank account in the name of the defendant to G on March 31, 2007, KRW 15 million was remitted to G.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Upon the request of G, the Plaintiff lent KRW 15 million to the Defendant.

② The Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement for consumption with G, a representative or a company of the Defendant, for the amount of KRW 15 million, and accordingly, paid KRW 15 million to the Defendant. The validity of the above loan agreement for consumption extends to the Defendant who is the principal.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the loan repayment amounting to KRW 15 million and damages for delay.

나. 피고 피고가 원고로부터 지급받은 1,500만 원은, 원고의 G에 대한 채무 변제조로 지급받은 것일 뿐(구체적으로 G가 피고에게 ‘원고로부터 지급받을 돈이 있는데, 평소 원고와의 친분관계 때문에 독촉하기 곤란하다. 그래서 피고에게 갚아야 할 돈이 있는 것처럼 말해 뒀으니, 나를 대신해서 원고로부터 1,500만 원을 지급받아 달라.’라고 말하였고, 피고는 이러한 G의 제안을 받아들였다), 원고로부터 차용한 돈이 아니다.

3. Determination

A. In case of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance can be made based on a variety of legal causes. As such, the party asserting that the remitted money is a loan under a monetary loan contract with the person who receives it shall bear the burden of proof.