1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

Basic facts were known to the defendant around the beginning of 2015, and the plaintiff became aware of his personal relations from around 2017 to around June 2018.

On February 26, 2018, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000 for the lease deposit for the first floor of E-building (hereinafter “instant store”).

On February 21, 2018, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 18,000,000 to C, a lessee of the instant store, as premium, as indicated in the following table, between February 26, 2018 and April 30, 2018.

(2) On March 5, 2018, 200 on March 15, 2018, 2018, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 124,000,000 to the payee’s name (hereinafter “instant money”). The Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 10,000 and delay damages to the Plaintiff on April 30, 2018, on the following grounds: (a) on February 26, 2018, the transfer amount of KRW 124,00,000 transferred by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant money”); (b) on March 5, 2018, the transfer amount of KRW 124,00,00 to the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant money”); and (c) on March 30, 200, the Plaintiff and the Defendant leased the instant money transferred to the Defendant’s account under the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant money”); and (d) on the basis that the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the entire pleadings by the Defendant and the Defendant’s purport of the Plaintiff’s claim.

The Plaintiff paid the instant money to the Defendant for the purpose of deceptioning the Defendant’s refund. The instant money is not a loan that the Plaintiff donated to the Defendant.

Judgment

In the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as a loan for consumption, a donation, and a repayment. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement among the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the fact that such transfer was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that money was given and received between the parties, it may not be readily concluded.