1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Basic Facts

In around 2011, the Defendant entered the main point of Daejeon Sung-gu C, Daejeon (hereinafter “D”) where the Plaintiff had worked as an employee, as the customer of the said case.

On April 29, 2011, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000 to the Defendant.

(Repaid Period is 15 days after the date of lending, and there was no interest agreement). The Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s passbook, remitted each of the KRW 1,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s passbook on May 23, 201, and KRW 15,000,000 on June 14, 201.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 4, and the plaintiff's assertion that the purport of the whole pleadings is asserted by the parties concerned are as follows: from 2010 to April 201, the defendant 17,000,000 won in total from the main points of this case; and the defendant borrowed 20,000,000 won in total from the plaintiff on April 29, 2011. Since 16,00,000 won in total received two times from the defendant from the main points of this case was appropriated for the credit value of the defendant's drinking, the defendant is obligated to pay 21,00,000 won in total to the plaintiff (a loan No. 20,000,000 won in total).

Although the Defendant alleged that the Defendant borrowed KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid KRW 16,000,000 to the Plaintiff on May 23, 2011, and KRW 15,000 on June 14, 2011 and KRW 16,00,000 on two occasions, and there is no obligation that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff.

The facts that the Defendant borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the Plaintiff on April 29, 201, 201, on April 29, 201, as to the grounds for the claim for the sale, do not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 20,000,000 and damages for delay.

According to the statement in subparagraph 3 of the credit rating claim Gap and the testimony of the witness E and witness F of the first instance trial, the defendant is found to have served alcohol at the main point of this case in around 2011, but the following circumstances, i.e., the plaintiff did not submit all sales records, etc. concerning the credit rating, even though he is found to have served alcohol at the main point of this case in around 201.