1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant who had been employed as a singing employee while entering a singing room operated by C.

B. The Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 11,500,000 to the Defendant as follows.

The remittance amount (based on recognition) 2017-02-16 4,000,00 D 2017-02-21 3,000,000 E 2017-04-17,500,000 Defendant 11,50,000 [based on recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff leased KRW 11,50,000 to the Defendant three times on February 16, 2017, February 21, 2017, and April 17, 2017, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said loan and the damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

B. The plaintiff alleged that he introduced himself as a re-satise and demanded the defendant to have a physical relationship several times, and voluntarily remitted money to the defendant who had an economic difficulty.

The plaintiff did not lend money to the defendant, but remitted money to the price or any subparagraph for physical relations, so the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the remitted money was a loan, and the Defendant asserts as a consideration or donation for physical relations and asserts as to whether the remitted money was a loan. Therefore, we examine whether the aforementioned remitted amount is a loan.

The following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 1 as well as Eul witness’s testimony, i.e., the plaintiff and the defendant knew to singing customers and employees; ② the plaintiff remitted money through a financial account, not in cash, but in cash; ② the amount of the remitted money was not at least KRW 3,000,4,000,450,000, respectively; ③ the plaintiff remitted money to the account under the name of the defendant; and ③ the plaintiff transferred money to the account under the name of D, E, and the defendant, which was known to the plaintiff by setting the account number.