The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant required to pay the insurance premium for the purpose of paying the insurance premium, and the Plaintiff received a request for a monetary loan from the Defendant, and lent KRW 35,00,000 to the Defendant on July 15, 2014.

However, even though the defendant promised to repay after one month, it has not been paid up until now.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 35,000,000 won and delayed damages.

2. Determination

A. Even if there is no dispute between the parties to the relevant legal doctrine as to the fact that there was a cash receipt between the parties, when the defendant contests the plaintiff's assertion that he/she had the burden of proof on the plaintiff who asserts the loan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 201Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). (b) The judgment following the conclusion that the plaintiff paid KRW 35,00,000 to the defendant on July 15, 2014, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the plaintiff paid the defendant in cash.

However, as to whether a monetary consumption lending contract has been concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, the statement of evidence No. 1 and the testimony of the witness C as shown in the evidence No. 1 and the witness C do not believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the Defendant asserts that at the time of the above lending of money, the Defendant borrowed money in the name of the company for the operating funds of D Co., Ltd., which was in office as the representative director, and that it was not personally lent by the Defendant. However, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant did not prepare a loan certificate, cash custody certificate, and letter, etc., which can be known that the above lending was made even though he paid the amount equivalent to KRW 35,00,000,000, and the Plaintiff paid money in cash

In addition to the circumstances shown in the record, it is difficult to recognize that the above amount paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is a loan.