1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff knew with the Defendant for a long time and transferred money to the account in the name of the Defendant or a third party designated by the Defendant for a long time.

B. On November 18, 2008, the Defendant had a third party deposit KRW 190 million with the Plaintiff’s bank account. On November 26, 2008, the Plaintiff returned the amount of KRW 135 million among them to the Defendant on November 26, 2008, and on November 28, 2008, issued a loan certificate of KRW 45 million borrowed from the Defendant’s spouse C, and transferred KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s bank account on September 27, 2012.

C. Meanwhile, C filed a lawsuit seeking payment of the remainder of KRW 25 million against the Plaintiff on the ground of the above loan certificate (i.e., KRW 45 million - KRW 20 million - KRW 20 million ) (Uyangyang-si District Court Decision 2018 Ghana 11327, Dec. 13, 2018, which rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 25 million and its delay damages to C,” which became final and conclusive on December 13, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 4, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff lent a total of KRW 97.12 million to the defendant as shown in the attached Form, and thus, the plaintiff sought payment of KRW 4.4.8 million, which is part of them, and damages for delay. The plaintiff asserted in the attached document of January 17, 2019 that "the plaintiff's statement that he received KRW 190 million in the previous case on behalf of the defendant and appropriated for payment of KRW 45 million in the previous case is due to mistake, and thus it is revoked (section 3 of the preparatory document)." However, the plaintiff's statement that the above KRW 45 million was appropriated for payment of the loan is not invoked by the defendant (the defendant is consistently asserting that the plaintiff must return KRW 45 million in the above amount.)

(2) The Plaintiff’s statement that the Plaintiff received reimbursement does not constitute a prior confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da64752, Jun. 9, 2016).