1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified by the Plaintiff’s modification of the Plaintiff’s claim in this court as follows.

Defendant B.

1. The Plaintiff, on January 31, 2017, deposited KRW 30 million in an account in the name of Defendant C (Defendant B’s spouse) designated by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant KRW 30 million”) with no dispute between the parties.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. (1) On January 31, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the instant KRW 30 million to Defendant B after the due date for payment. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million and its delay damages (main claim). (2) Defendant B, even if having borrowed money from the Plaintiff, could be fully repaid without the intent or ability to repay the money, by deceiving the Plaintiff as if he could be able to fully repay the money, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million and its delay damages.

(3) Even if the loan of KRW 30 million is not recognized, the Plaintiff erred by misapprehending that there was a monetary loan agreement with Defendant B, and paid KRW 30 million to Defendant B, even though it did not agree with the intent to make a monetary loan of KRW 30 million, and thus, Defendant B shall return the Plaintiff the instant monetary loan of KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment (b).

If Defendant C’s claim against Defendant C is not accepted, the Defendant C received KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff without any legal ground, and thus, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million with the return of unjust enrichment.

3. Determination as to the primary claim against Defendant B

A. In a lawsuit claiming the return of a loan, the burden of proving the contractual fact of a loan for consumption is against the Plaintiff who asserts its effect.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da12280, Jun. 14, 2013). In regard to the instant KRW 30 million, the Plaintiff and the Defendant indicated the loan certificate, etc.