1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 1 and No. 2 of the basic facts, the fact that the KRW 100 million was transferred from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Defendant to the Defendant’s account on June 30, 2014, and the fact that the Defendant deposited KRW 2.50,000 in the Plaintiff’s account on August 29, 2014 and September 15, 2014 is recognized, respectively, and there is no counter-proof.

2. The parties' assertion

A. As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 100 million to the Defendant at an annual interest rate of 3% on June 30, 2014, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the interest calculated at the agreed interest rate of KRW 100 million and 3% per annum on the date of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the Plaintiff, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day

B. On June 30, 2014, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was merely paying the above KRW 100 million to the service cost when the Plaintiff received services, such as identifying information, on-site investigation, contact with residents organizations, and managing and managing information pertaining to the C district’s business that the Plaintiff seeks to participate.

3. Determination

A. In case of remitting money to another person's deposit account, etc., the remittance can be based on a variety of legal causes, so the claimant has the burden of proving that the remittance is a loan under a contract for a loan for consumption of money with the person who receives the money.

(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014 and Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24,

In light of the above legal principles, there is no loan certificate as to whether the above KRW 100 million is a loan, and there is no loan certificate to the effect that the above KRW 100 million is a loan, and since the plaintiff did not submit evidence other than the evidence No. 1 and No. 2, it is deemed that the above KRW 100 million is a money remitted for other reasons, not a loan.