1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above part shall be dismissed.

1. The fact that the plaintiff remitted the basic facts to his own account as KRW 20 million on July 30, 2003, KRW 29 million on August 29, 2003, KRW 500,000 on September 3, 2004, and KRW 3 million on January 18, 2005 to the defendant's account, who is his own holder, is recognized if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the entire argument is added to the statement in subparagraph 1-4 (hereinafter referred to as "the above money of this case"). 2. The judgment on the grounds of the claim is as follows:

A. 1) The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay 48 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff, since he lent the money of this case to the defendant. 2) The defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay 48 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff. The defendant's father of the plaintiff as of July 30, 2003 and August 29, 2003 contributed to the defendant's full-time loan. The plaintiff's father of the plaintiff supported the defendant's full-time loan. 5 million won was the mother's mother's support for educational expenses. The plaintiff's father transferred the money to the defendant's account at his parent's request. 3 million won as of January 18, 2005 was subrogated by the defendant to D, so the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

B. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence No. 2-1, No. 2, No. 3-1, and No. 3-2 as to whether the amount of this case is the plaintiff's loan to the defendant, the plaintiff can be found to have withdrawn KRW 2,00,000 from his Daegu Bank or the Agricultural Cooperative Account on July 30, 2003, KRW 1,000,000,000 from August 29, 2003, and KRW 6,000,000,000 from September 3, 2004. The plaintiff remitted the amount of this case to the defendant's account as seen above, however, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the amount of this case falls under the loan of this case in light of the above circumstances, since the plaintiff's statement No. 4-1, No. 4-2, Gap evidence No. 7, Eul evidence No. 1, 2, 5-8, and the purport of testimony of the witness witness testimony of the party.