1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

2...

1. In the first instance court’s judgment on April 29, 201, the Plaintiff claimed payment of KRW 100,000,000,000 as loans of KRW 25,00,000 to the Defendant on April 29, 2016, and KRW 65,000,000 as loans of May 10, 2016, and KRW 10,000,000 as loans of June 15, 2016. The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for each of the above loans of KRW 25,00,000 as of April 29, 206 and KRW 65,00,000 as of May 10, 2016.

Therefore, since only the plaintiff appealed against the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is limited to the loan claim of KRW 10,000,000 on June 15, 2016.

2. Determination

A. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant’s account on June 15, 2016 is no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff asserts that it was lent to the defendant. The defendant argued that the above 10,00,000 won is the actual borrower C, and the defendant only offered the account for remittance convenience. Thus, the defendant argued that the defendant did not repay money to the defendant although he borrowed money from the defendant on September 23, 2016, i.e., the defendant raised a complaint against C as a crime of fraud. The defendant stated that the defendant lent money to C on April 29, 2016, 15, 100, 56, 90, 000 won to the defendant on May 10, 2016, 200, 2000 won, 10, 1000 won, 10, 1000 won, 10, 2005 won, 106, 200, 2000 won, 10, 2006, 2005, 2016.