1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. As to the request for return of the loan (as a matter of interest claim);

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant by transferring the account of KRW 9,575,00 to the Defendant at the request of the Plaintiff’s wife D, who requested the Defendant to lend money from the Defendant’s wife C.

B. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2 as well as evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 4,800,000 to the Defendant’s E’s account around March 28, 2007, KRW 3,000,000 around May 29, 2007, and KRW 1,775,00 to the Defendant’s account, respectively.

However, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 4-1 and No. 4-2, and the whole purport of the arguments, it appears that the plaintiff's incidental D and the defendant's incidental C were claims and obligations in Japan, and it appears that the plaintiff, upon the plaintiff's request, transferred money to the defendant or the defendant's account before the lawsuit of this case was filed.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion, which is premised on the establishment of a monetary loan contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, is without merit.

2. Concerning a claim for return of unjust enrichment (preliminary cause of claim);

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant gained unjust enrichment by receiving money from the plaintiff, and thus, he must return it.

B. As seen earlier, there exists a legal relationship between D and C, and as long as there exists a legal relationship between D and C as the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant or the Defendant’s children upon D’s request during the process of its implementation, the Defendant acquired the said money without any legal ground.

subsection (b) of this section.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.