1. The plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claims filed by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 5 million to the Defendant on January 27, 2016 is without dispute between the parties.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion money is lent to the defendant upon C's request.

Unless a loan is recognized, the defendant shall return the money transferred from the plaintiff to the unjust enrichment because he/she obtained a profit without any legal ground.

B. On January 28, 2015, upon the request of the Defendant C by the Defendant, the Plaintiff was paid the money lent to the Plaintiff with the advance payment.

3. Determination

A. According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, as alleged by the Defendant, on January 13, 2015, the Daejeon District Court: (a) transferred KRW 5 million to the F account in order to pay KRW 5 million for the execution deposit in D Cases applied for under the name of the Plaintiff on January 13, 2015; (b) on January 14, 2015, the enforcement deposit was made; and (c) on January 28, 2015, the Defendant remitted KRW 5 million to E (State) on January 28, 2015.

B. On April 9, 2019, the Plaintiff stated that “C lent money to the Defendant on the date of pleading, and there was no fact of contact with the Defendant”.

C. We examine whether the amount transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendant can be deemed as a loan to the Defendant.

The issue of whether a third party’s application was made using the name of the plaintiff is followed. In light of the existence of the money remitted by the defendant to E (State) upon C’s request, the motive that the plaintiff remitted to the defendant, and the motive that both the plaintiff and the defendant remitted money to the defendant, and the fact that they directly contacted the defendant, the fact that the plaintiff remitted money to the defendant is insufficient to recognize that the loan agreement was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant should use and return the money, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The Plaintiff’s loan assertion is without merit. D.

Next, the defendant has received money from the plaintiff.