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. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 4 million to Defendant B on November 1, 2013, and KRW 5 million on November 4, 2013, respectively.

In addition, the Plaintiff loaned the Defendant B a cash of KRW 5 million on November 4, 2013 under Defendant C’s joint guarantee, and KRW 10 million on the same day, respectively, for the purpose of building paint and waterproof construction cost.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 9 million to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendants’ assertion (1) did not borrow the money as stated in paragraph (1) but received as consideration for the introduction of real estate to the Plaintiff, and (2) the money as stated in paragraph (3) did not have received the money, and (4) the money as stated in paragraph (1) was given to the Plaintiff as the price for building paint and waterproof construction, and the Plaintiff did not complete the construction.

2. Determination

A. (1) The fact that the Plaintiff remitted the remittance of KRW 4 million to Defendant B on November 1, 2013 is no dispute between the parties.

However, in the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be carried out based on various legal causes. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the parties had any intent to a loan for consumption solely on the fact that such transfer was made. The burden of proving that such intent was jointly carried out by the parties to the loan for consumption is asserted by the Plaintiff that the remittance was made based on a loan for consumption between the parties.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014). In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the above money was a loan, and rather, according to the statement No. 2-6, the Plaintiff sent to Defendant B a certificate of the content seeking return on October 1, 2014, on the premise that Defendant B received the above KRW 4 million as a real estate brokerage commission.