1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s basic facts constitute an account under the name of the Defendant for KRW 24 million on July 30, 2016, and the same year.

8. 8.26 million won remitted total of KRW 50 million.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties’ assertion ① The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to lend money necessary for the operation of the restaurant, and the Defendant lent the loan amount of KRW 50 million to the Defendant on July 28, 2017, respectively, with the interest rate of KRW 1.5 million per month, and the payment period of KRW 50 million per month. While the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to refund the loan amount of KRW 50 million and the delayed payment amount to the Plaintiff, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to return the loan amount of KRW 50 million to the Defendant. However, the Defendant asserts that the said KRW 50 million, which the Plaintiff transferred

B. (1) Determination (1) Since a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account may be made based on various legal causes, such as a loan for consumption, a donation, and a repayment, such transfer may not be readily concluded solely on the fact that such transfer had been made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such a transfer was made with respect to a loan for consumption cannot be readily concluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 20

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, etc.). (2) The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 50 million to the Defendant is as seen earlier.

However, in the instant case where the Defendant asserted the Plaintiff’s loan, it is difficult to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above assertion solely on the basis of the investigation results against the Plaintiff and Nonparty C, which can be seen by considering the overall purport of the evidence presented by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to

[No. 1 of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the signature next to the Defendant’s name is the Defendant’s signature, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity.