1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. On October 13, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent the Defendant the repayment period of KRW 30 million to the Defendant with the same fraternity relationship as of October 13, 2015. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the principal and interest of the loan.

B. The plaintiff alleged by the defendant does not lend money to the defendant, but merely remitted the money that the defendant received from the main debtor C on behalf of C.

2. Even though there is no dispute as to the fact that there is the number of money between the parties to the sales market, the reason that the Plaintiff received the money is a monetary loan for consumption, and the defendant bears the burden of proving that it was received due to a loan for consumption if it is asserted that it was received due to the loan for consumption, and the transfer of money to another person's deposit account may be made based on various causes, such as donation, repayment, investment, etc. in addition to a loan for consumption. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that such transfer was made in conformity with the intent of the parties to the loan

With respect to the instant case, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 30 million to the account of the Defendant husband on October 13, 2015, but the Plaintiff is unable to submit materials proving the existence of the repayment period or interest agreement, which is an essential element of the loan, or a loan certificate corresponding thereto; there is no motive or interest that the Plaintiff directly lends money to the Defendant; rather, C assumes the above remittance amount as its obligation to the Plaintiff through a written statement (Evidence No. 3) and the fact that there was a considerable monetary transaction with C prior to the above remittance; in light of the fact that the Plaintiff is a person that there was a considerable monetary transaction with C, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion