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. On December 28, 2006, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff leased KRW 5,000,000 to C by means of remitting the amount of KRW 5,00,000 to a deposit account in the name of C, the father of the Defendant; (b) C died without paying the above loan; (c) the Defendant’s mother died; (d) the Defendant’s mother was also dead; (c) the Defendant, as the Defendant’s mother, succeeded to the net C’s obligation to the Plaintiff by agreement on the division of inherited property to the effect that the Defendant would succeed to the claim and obligation of the deceased C between the deceased C and E, the co-inheritors, the co-inheritors, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 5,00,00 and the agreed interest or delay damages.

2. Determination

A. In case of remitting money to another person's deposit account, the remittance can be conducted based on various legal causes. Thus, the party who asserts that the remittance is a loan under a monetary loan contract with the person who receives it (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972) bears the burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading as to evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff was aware that he remitted money to the bank account under the name of the deceased C on December 28, 2006, but there was no document such as a certificate of borrowing, etc. between the Plaintiff and the deceased C, and the Defendant's mother has lent money to the Plaintiff over several occasions from 201 to 2013, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant remitted money to the account under the name of the deceased C on 200,5000, 2008.