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. Facts of recognition;

A. From March 7, 2014 to May 9, 2014, the Plaintiff wired the sum of KRW 23 million from the new bank account (Account Number C) in the name of the Plaintiff to the national bank account and the new bank account in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “amount of remittance”).

The amount on March 7, 2014, KRW 2,800,00 in the Defendant bank account D 2,400,000 on March 16, 2014; KRW 32,80,000 in the National Bank E 3 March 27, 2014; KRW 450,000 in the National Bank D 50,000 on March 27, 2014; KRW 40,00 in the National Bank D 50,00 in the National Bank D 63,00,00 in the National Bank 0,000 won on April 13, 2014; KRW 70,000,000 in the aggregate of KRW 0,000 in the National Bank D 0,000 in the National Bank 0,000 won on April 13, 2014; KRW 80,000 in the National Bank Do 40,2014.

B. From the new bank account (Account Number F) in the name of the Defendant to the account in the name of the Plaintiff, KRW 3 million was transferred from March 27, 2014 to the phone bank transaction. On March 30, 2014, KRW 27 million was transferred to the phone bank transaction.

C. Around 1996, the Defendant married with G and 1996, resulting in a divorce between G and 2001. Around 2012, G, along with G and resident registration, made it possible for G to benefit from the health insurance, and issued a card using the instant account with the Defendant’s name (Account Number D; hereinafter “instant account”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 3, and 4, testimony of witness G, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff, first of all, lent the instant remittance amount to the Defendant by directly remitting the instant remittance amount, claiming that the Plaintiff would claim for the unpaid payment amount of KRW 17.3 million and damages for delay, and the Defendant, the Defendant, who was the principal, borrowed the instant remittance amount on behalf of the Defendant, which is the matters relating to the Defendant’s daily household business or daily living expenses, as the former male group of the Defendant, who was in a de facto marital relationship with the Defendant.