1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant, as the agreement fee for traffic accidents between the Defendant, and KRW 43 million on March 3, 2017, as the deposit money for the operation of the Defendant and the Defendant’s mother’s main store.

The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 43 million, excluding the amount of KRW 10 million already repaid, out of KRW 53 million.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the money was remitted to the Defendant is not a loan but a donation.

From December 2016, the Defendant was living together with the Plaintiff and actually living together with the Plaintiff, and was transferred KRW 10 million as a living expense on December 8, 2016.

The amount of KRW 43 million that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff is the partner fee of the packing horse operated by the Defendant and the Defendant’s birth, which was donated to the Defendant for the future use of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s old age fund.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On December 8, 2016, the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant on December 8, 2016 does not conflict between the parties.

However, in full view of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the contents of No. 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was a loan of KRW 10 million to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

① There is no objective disposition document, such as a loan certificate, which can be recognized as a loan in the amount of KRW 10 million that the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant.

② The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant lent KRW 10 million as the Plaintiff’s agreement on traffic accidents was necessary.

However, according to the record on May 21, 2018 of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s record, the Defendant respondeded to the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff would have lent KRW 10 million to her own by her own, since she would have changed to her place of residence,” and that “The Plaintiff would have borrowed KRW 10 million to her own by her place of residence.”