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.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is running the scrap metal business, and C purchased and sold scrap metal and used machinery, and the defendant married on March 23, 200 with C and 200, but a divorce was made on June 17, 2009.

C around June 2014, due to the lack of funds necessary to purchase used machinery and scrap metal, C asked the Plaintiff, who was aware of the fact that it was ordinary transactions, to lend money. The Plaintiff introduced E to C while there was no money but any person to lend his own money.

E has lent money to C through the Plaintiff, and it has been lent to C, and at the time C, the Plaintiff, the E, the debtor, and the joint guarantor, the Plaintiff as the creditor E, the debtor, and the joint guarantor.

The Plaintiff, respectively, remitted KRW 23,500,000 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (Account Number:F) in the name of the Defendant, which C notified, in receipt of KRW 23,00,00 from E, and KRW 4,00,000 on June 25, 2014, and KRW 50,000 on July 14, 2014, and KRW 1,50,000 on July 1, 2014.

At the time, C was unable to engage in financial transactions in his name as a bad credit holder, and was engaged in financial transactions through the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the defendant or the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the defendant D even after the divorce with the defendant.

C After borrowing money as above, C transferred 6,90,000 won via an account in the name of the Defendant to E, a direct creditor, via an account in the name of the Defendant from August 8, 2014 to March 13, 2015, and 8,080,000 won via an account in the name of D, respectively, over 20 times from December 31, 2014 to November 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, the witness of the first instance trial, the witness’s testimony, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 to Eul evidence No. 5 (including additional numbers), and the plaintiff transferred KRW 23,500,000 to the account in the name of the defendant as seen earlier, as seen in the judgment as to the ground of claim of the entire purport of the pleadings, it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff promptly lent KRW 23,50,000 to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, on the basis of the above facts.