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. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent KRW 17.3 million to the Defendant via C around August 2010, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money and the damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

2. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 17.3 million to C’s account (agricultural cooperative, D) that was the Defendant’s accounting employee, and KRW 17.3 million on August 6, 2010 (hereinafter “the instant money”).

However, in full view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the respective descriptions and arguments of Nos. 2 and 3, the Plaintiff appears to have lent the instant money to C, and the Defendant actually used the Plaintiff’s account transferred to C.

Inasmuch as the circumstance or evidence presented by the Plaintiff, including the circumstance that the instant money was used for the Defendant’s operating funds, etc., is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff lent the instant money to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is without merit.

There is no direct evidence, such as a loan certificate or cash storage certificate, supporting that the Plaintiff lent KRW 17.3 million to the Defendant, or there is no financial data stating the details of transfer to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff voluntarily stated that he remitted the instant money upon C’s request.

C. In light of the fact that C filed a lawsuit for the claim for the agreed amount under the Changwon District Court Jinwon Branch 2012Gahap1170 on the ground that C lent operating funds, etc. including the instant money to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff initially stated that C intended to receive the instant money from the Defendant pursuant to the said judgment, the Plaintiff appears to have filed the instant lawsuit as C lost the instant money as C did not want to receive the instant money from the Defendant, although C intended to receive the instant money from the Defendant,.