1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 6, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100,000,00 to the Defendant’s bank account.

B. Around September 6, 2007, the Plaintiff was the auditor of Nonparty C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) for meat processing and wholesale retail business, and the Defendant was the representative director of Nonparty Co., Ltd.

C. On June 23, 2008, the Plaintiff received transfer of KRW 20 million from the Defendant’s financial institution’s account to D’s national bank account, the Plaintiff’s wife, and returned KRW 20,000,000 out of the above KRW 100,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion 50,000,000 won paid to the defendant prior to the payment of the above 100,000,000 won to the defendant, but the above 100,000,000 won additionally paid to the defendant is the amount that the plaintiff lent to the defendant, and thus the defendant is obligated to pay it. 2) The defendant's argument is not a loan but an investment in the non-party company, which is used for the capital increase of the non-party company, and thus, the defendant is not liable to return it.

B. Even if there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that money was received, when the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the lending was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). Thus, it should be recognized that the Defendant, who was the other party to whom the lending was granted, agreed to return the money equivalent to that of the Plaintiff, to be recognized as a loan under a loan for consumption under the Civil Act where the Plaintiff seeks to return the money by the instant lawsuit against the Defendant.

In light of the following circumstances, the above basic facts, the statements in Gap evidence 1 to 5, and the witness E’s testimony alone: