1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 100,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from June 23, 2015 to September 30, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay 120 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff, because he received a request from the defendant for a loan from the defendant to the defendant to pay 120 million won as a loan to the defendant, and that the defendant is obligated to pay 120 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that although the plaintiff, who had relations with the plaintiff, received 120,000 won over three times the money donated by the plaintiff for fraud, he did not borrow money.

2. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 20,00,000 to the Defendant on June 19, 2013, and KRW 100,000,000 to the head of the Tong under the name of the Defendant does not dispute between the parties, or can be recognized by the respective descriptions of Gap 1, 2, and 3.

3. (1) Even though there is no dispute over the fact that the parties exchange money, the plaintiff asserts that the cause of receiving money is a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that it is a loan for consumption.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972). On the other hand, the reason for giving and receiving the money should not be determined as a donation immediately on the ground that two persons exchange and receive the money are both men and women having a relationship with one another. Whether the cause is a loan for consumption or a donation should be determined by taking into account the developments leading up to giving and receiving the money, the economic situation and specific living relationship between the parties, the amount, and the intention of return

(2) In full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings submitted by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, each of which were their own homes, became aware of through the Plaintiff’s post-issuance from June 2012, and the Plaintiff continued to have a sexual intercourse in Busan on December 2012, and entered into a mutual relationship with the Plaintiff on June 2014, and entered into a mutual relationship with the Plaintiff on the basis of the relationship with the former, and at the time of delivering the instant money to the Defendant.