1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. In fact, the Plaintiff had the intention to work C on the second floor E of the D Building in light of the luminous life operated by C in a de facto marital relationship.

The defendant received daily allowances from E and assisted preparation of meals, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff sought return on October 14, 201 because he/she lent KRW 4,000,000 to the Defendant on April 14, 201, and thus, lent KRW 4,000,000 to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant borrowed KRW 10,000 from the plaintiff, but paid it, 4,000,000,000.

3. Determination

A. There is no dispute over the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant for the determination of the loan claim of KRW 10,000.

However, the plaintiff asserts that the time of lease is October 4, 201, and the defendant asserts that it is November 30, 201.

The plaintiff's assertion is accepted, since the loan period in Gap 1-1 is described as October 4, 201 as October 4, 201.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff voluntarily supplemented the rental period, but it is not sufficient to recognize the rental period only by Eul, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's argument is rejected.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 10,000,000 and damages for delay.

The defendant asserts that he joined the limit operated by C and received KRW 20,800,000 on August 6, 2012, and paid KRW 10,000 to the plaintiff immediately.

In line with this, Eul 1 is merely a camera prepared by the defendant himself, and it is difficult to easily believe it, and it is insufficient to recognize it only by 3 and 10, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

In addition, the defendant paid 10,000,000 won to the plaintiff and then returned the loan certificate, but the plaintiff did not directly remove the loan certificate, but it is proved that it did not return it.