1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person in a de facto marital relationship with E, who is the representative of the "Dmat in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, which is a de facto marital relationship with E, and the defendant is an employee of the "Dmat", and the defendant is a person who carries out the business of transporting the camping, cry, etc. sold in the "Dmat" as a truck in the "Dmat" after purchasing it from the "Dmat" market, etc.

B. The Plaintiff remitted KRW 22,390,000 (hereinafter “the instant money”) in total of KRW 3,990,000 on January 2, 2015, to the Defendant’s Seoul Agricultural Cooperative account, KRW 4,580,00 on January 2, 2015, KRW 370,000 on January 2, 2015, KRW 3,990,000 on January 9, 2015, KRW 3,000 on January 11, 2015, KRW 6,50,000 on January 14, 2015, and KRW 22,390 on February 2, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the claim of this case is the cause of the claim of this case, and that the money of this case is the money that the defendant lent to Japan as necessary for the defendant to drink or drink to Japan.

In this regard, the defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff, and argued that the money in this case is the money transferred to pay for the purpose of purchasing the bonds to be sold from the "Dart", i.e. the money.

B. First, in light of the following circumstances, the witness F’s testimony that the Plaintiff lent the instant money to the Defendant is difficult to believe in light of the contents of the testimony or the attitude of testimony, etc., and the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 2) Rather, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the instant money was the money that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant, and in view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was the money that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s assertion.