1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. On November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant’s account.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff, through a complaint and a preparatory document, requested the Defendant to lend KRW 5,00,000 directly to the Plaintiff, and lent the money to the Defendant. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that “the Defendant did not request the Plaintiff to lend money, and C sent money by inserting money into the Defendant’s passbook, his wife, and not demanding the Defendant to pay money directly.”

B. In order to recognize that a monetary loan contract has been established between the original defendant and the original defendant, the plaintiff should lend the above money to the defendant, and the defendant must have agreed to return such money to the plaintiff.

(Article 598 of the Civil Code). However, according to the plaintiff's assertion, it is doubtful whether the plaintiff has remitted money to the defendant with the intent to lend money to the defendant, and there is no proof of any assertion that the defendant has expressed his intent to borrow and return money from the plaintiff.

(B) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff granted the right of representation for a monetary loan to C is not sufficient to prove that the Plaintiff granted such right of representation, or there is no evidence to acknowledge this). Therefore, the fact that the Plaintiff wired money to the Defendant cannot be deemed to have established a monetary loan contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is groundless.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.