1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings No. 1 on December 24, 2009, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 5 million to the Defendant on March 30, 2010 after setting the due date for repayment on December 24, 2009 by December 24, 2009.

2. Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the remaining 15.4 million won (hereinafter “the remittance amount of this case”) was given and received between the parties, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan was lent has the burden of proof as to the fact of the loan when the Defendant contests against the Defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018). The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant lent the instant remittance amount to the Defendant from January 25, 2011 to January 31, 2012.

Therefore, even though there is no dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff remitted the remittance amount of KRW 15,400,00 to the account in the name of C and D, which is the defendant's father, during the above period, the defendant is aware that the remittance amount of this case was not only the business expenses incurred in the course of running his business as the plaintiff, but not the loan, and the loan of this case was already received from the defendant as of December 24, 2009, and at the time, the defendant had to use the financial account in the name of his father's bad credit. However, the defendant did not receive the loan certificate from the defendant regarding the amount of the remittance amount of this case with a larger amount, and there is no evidence to prove that the remittance amount of this case was requested for the return of the remittance amount of this case for the nearest five years, in light of the content certification (Evidence No. 3) of Jan. 19, 2017.

In this part, the plaintiff.