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. Basic facts

A. From June 201, the Defendant, along with E and D, operated the “F” located in the O of the State.

B. On February 24, 2011, the Defendant opened a national bank account (hereinafter “instant account”) under the name of the Defendant, created a cash card that enables cash withdrawal, issued the said cash card to G, and notified G of the passwords necessary for Internet banking simultaneously, and G traded money with the Plaintiff, etc. using the instant account and cash card in the name of the Defendant.

C. On January 17, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred total of KRW 2,700,000, KRW 7,000,000 on March 27, 2012, and KRW 25,700,000 on April 5, 2012 (hereinafter “the instant money”) to the instant account. The Plaintiff was transferred total of KRW 4,350,000 on April 9, 2012, KRW 5,350,000 on April 25, 2012, and KRW 5,350,000 on April 25, 2012, the Plaintiff, H, and I were charged with fraud by the Plaintiff on September 14, 2013, and each of the Defendant’s criminal charges (hereinafter “instant criminal charges”), on the grounds that the instant criminal charges were charges of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 13 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around January 2012, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to purchase and make an investment in the Jeju Innovation City’s real estate, guarantee the principal, and lend money by guaranteeing a high yield. Accordingly, the Plaintiff borrowed the instant money by remitting the instant money to the Defendant without setting interest and due date. 2) Since the Defendant repaid KRW 5,350,000 out of the instant money, it is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan amount to the Defendant.

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff transferred the instant money to the instant account under the name of the Defendant, but only based on the Plaintiff’s assertion.