1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. On February 25, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50 million to the account in the name of D requested by the Defendant, after setting the period for repayment to the Defendant two months later, deducting the amount of two months prior to the second month calculated at the ratio of 3% per month, and then remitting KRW 3 million to the account in the name of D requested by the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay 650,000 won, which is the amount exceeding the rate of 30% per annum, which is the maximum interest rate at the time of the above loan, from among the 3 million won which the Plaintiff received as a two-month interest rate, to the Plaintiff, which is the remainder of the amount appropriated for 50,000,000 won of the loan principal at the above agreement, and damages for delay from April 26, 201.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff transferred 47 million won to the account held in D’s name on February 25, 2011 is merely the amount invested by the Plaintiff in a third party or another person’s real estate using D’s name, not the amount loaned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that there is the receipt of money between the parties, the reason that the Plaintiff received the money is a monetary loan for consumption, and the Defendant is liable to prove that it was received due to a loan for consumption if it is asserted that it was received due to the loan for consumption, and the transfer of money to another person’s deposit account may be made based on various causes, such as donation, repayment, investment, etc. in addition to a loan for consumption, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement between the parties as to a loan for consumption solely on

B. As to the instant case, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 47 million to the account in the name of D on February 25, 2011 (hereinafter “instant remittance”) does not conflict between the parties. However, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 4 and Nos. 1 through 8 (including each serial number), the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff’s remittance to its own investment funds.